My favorite verses in the Tao Te Ching
This is partly for @Tom Storm but mostly for myself.
If any of you have read my other posts, you may have noticed that I like to drop quotes from the “Tao Te Ching” (from now on, TTC) into just about everything. It was written about 2,500 years ago in China by Lao Tzu. It’s always struck me as funny that that’s just about the same time Aristotle and his buddies were at work in Greece.
There are dozens of translations of the TTC. I will use Stephen Mitchell’s here. It’s the first one I read and the one I think is the most accessible to Americans. That being said, I was in a TTC reading group with a linguist. We discussed various translations and it became clear that Mitchell rounded over a lot of corners and sanded off a lot of sharp edges. Here’s a link to a great website that has a whole bunch of translations, including Mitchell’s
https://terebess.hu/english/tao/_index.html
In my reading group, we mainly used Ellen Marie Chen’s translation. You get a real taste for the language with her.
I love the Tao Te Ching. It changed my whole understanding of reality. Part of that understanding is that the description of reality in the TTC is not true or false. It’s a metaphysical description. I think most of our arguments in this forum come down to a misunderstanding of what is metaphysical and what is not. In a current thread elsewhere on the forum, we have been talking about R G Collingwood’s idea of absolute presuppositions (APs). If I have the idea of APs right, which I’m not sure of, the fundamental difference between Taoism and more familiar western philosophies is a difference in APs.
My plan is to pick out my favorite verses and discuss them. Taoism is supposed to be related to Zen and certainly has a lot in common with Buddhism. I don’t want to get too far into that. Some western philosophers, including Arthur Schopenhauer and Bertrand Russell, read Lao Tzu and discussed some of the issues he raised. I don’t want to get too far into that either.
In my next post, I will start with the first verse. After that, if people want to bring in their own favorites, that will be ok. I would like to work our way through it more or less in order. I will skip many verses just because I feel like it.
Keep in mind - I'm not going to be talking about what the TTC means. I will be talking about what it means to me.
If any of you have read my other posts, you may have noticed that I like to drop quotes from the “Tao Te Ching” (from now on, TTC) into just about everything. It was written about 2,500 years ago in China by Lao Tzu. It’s always struck me as funny that that’s just about the same time Aristotle and his buddies were at work in Greece.
There are dozens of translations of the TTC. I will use Stephen Mitchell’s here. It’s the first one I read and the one I think is the most accessible to Americans. That being said, I was in a TTC reading group with a linguist. We discussed various translations and it became clear that Mitchell rounded over a lot of corners and sanded off a lot of sharp edges. Here’s a link to a great website that has a whole bunch of translations, including Mitchell’s
https://terebess.hu/english/tao/_index.html
In my reading group, we mainly used Ellen Marie Chen’s translation. You get a real taste for the language with her.
I love the Tao Te Ching. It changed my whole understanding of reality. Part of that understanding is that the description of reality in the TTC is not true or false. It’s a metaphysical description. I think most of our arguments in this forum come down to a misunderstanding of what is metaphysical and what is not. In a current thread elsewhere on the forum, we have been talking about R G Collingwood’s idea of absolute presuppositions (APs). If I have the idea of APs right, which I’m not sure of, the fundamental difference between Taoism and more familiar western philosophies is a difference in APs.
My plan is to pick out my favorite verses and discuss them. Taoism is supposed to be related to Zen and certainly has a lot in common with Buddhism. I don’t want to get too far into that. Some western philosophers, including Arthur Schopenhauer and Bertrand Russell, read Lao Tzu and discussed some of the issues he raised. I don’t want to get too far into that either.
In my next post, I will start with the first verse. After that, if people want to bring in their own favorites, that will be ok. I would like to work our way through it more or less in order. I will skip many verses just because I feel like it.
Keep in mind - I'm not going to be talking about what the TTC means. I will be talking about what it means to me.
Comments (994)
[1] The ground of being
[2] The Tao that cannot be spoken
[3] Oneness is the Tao which is invisible and formless.
[4] Nature is Tao. Tao is everlasting.
[5] The absolute principle underlying the universe
[6] That in virtue of which all things happen or exist
[7] The intuitive knowing of life that cannot be grasped full-heartedly as just a concept
Verse 1 - Stephen Mitchell.
[i]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.[/i]
Stanza by stanza. Text in italics. My thoughts in normal font.
[i]The tao that can be told
is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named
is not the eternal Name.[/i]
This is the heart of it. The TTC is about reality before concepts. If it is put into words, it's no longer the Tao. The Tao is unspeakable. It's what was before there was anybody to think about it. It's also a joke. In this book, we're going to talk about what can't be talked about. I see the TTC as a bunch of snap shots of the Tao. Lao Tzu is trying to show it to us without letting the words get in the way. We're supposed to get our view of the Tao in our peripheral vision.
[i]The unnamable is the eternally real.
Naming is the origin
of all particular things.[/i]
This is one of the two or three ideas that are most important to me in the TTC. This theme comes up over and over. There is the Tao which is unspeakable, undivided, all one thing, and there is the world of particular, named things where we live our lives. Some translations use the phrase "the 10,000 things" to describe the world of particular things. I love that. It always makes me laugh. How does that transition take place? That's something I've thought about, and argued about in my reading group. My answer - it's a fundamentally human process. Humans and the Tao interact to create the 10,000 things. A lot of people disagree with that.
[i]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.[/i]
[i]Darkness within darkness.
The gateway to all understanding.[/i]
It is possible to experience the Tao directly and not through the filter of our words and concepts. Lost in the illusions of everyday life, we can see only the 10,000 things. Lao Tzu doesn't talk about illusions and I've been in arguments about whether it is appropriate to bring this Buddhist concept into a discussion of Taoism. There is certainly a difference between "mystery" and "darkness," here, but I just think of them as another way to say Tao.
Keep in mind that the TTC is written in ancient Chinese. Apparently even Chinese speakers have trouble understanding it. Sometimes, often, it seems self-contradictory. Some of that is differences in culture and language, but I think some of it is intentional, maybe even unavoidable.
Did I mention I love the Tao Te Ching.
Thank you TC. As I said to you earlier, I read TTC first in 1985 (ish) and was unable to incorporate it into my thinking. I guess it seemed then to be a kind of lengthy and unintelligible fortune cookie aphorism.
Looking over the Mitchell translation recently, I was struck by how some of the versus now instantly made sense. It's like something you recognise without it being familiar. This tradition is not known to me but it seems to be at least in part about balance and perspective and an invitation to stop and start again. Hope that's not too crude or obvious. Or wrong...
As a vulgar secularist, who is fond of words like metaphysical and spiritual but not too fond of what these words tend to mean in ordinary discourse, I am very interested in how people integrate this kind of work into a life.
I imagine people either click or don't with this.
I was struck by the following:
[i]What is a good man but a bad man’s teacher?
What is a bad man but a good man’s job?
If you don’t understand this, you will get lost,
however intelligent you are.
It is the great secret.[/i]
Every time I’ve picked it up, the phrases have resonated with my understanding, and the limitations of language and concepts dissolve...
This reminds me right now of the discussion on another thread on materialism and metaphysics:
“The old problem...if everything is metaphysics then nothing is metaphysics” I think fails to really understand the Tao.
and treat the myriad creatures
as straw dogs
I think this verse from the early Buddhist texts is comparable:
The ‘unmade’ is the ‘unmanifest’ which I’m sure is at least an analogy for ‘the unnamable’. The paradox is that as soon as it’s designated then it is named. Eastern philosophy generally is replete with such paradoxes.
The ‘10,000 things’ roughly translates as ‘phenomena’ or ‘every manifest thing’.
I don’t there is a conceptual niche for ‘the unmanifest, unmade, unnamed’ in modern thought.
I don't read much western philosophy, but once I was reading some Kant. His idea of "noumenon" seemed similar to me, although very clunky and mixed up with a lot of convoluted ideas. I checked on the web and actually found a paper comparing the two. It wasn't a very good paper. I don't think anyone thinks Kant was in any way influenced by anything Asian.
I've struggled with "heaven and earth" and where they fit into the Taoist vision. They're somewhere on the ladder between the Tao and the 10,000 things. I can't figure if they are something outside of us or are inside us.
What translation did you use?
Quoting Possibility
In a thread a couple of years ago, I put forth the idea that the Tao is analogous to objective reality. In my understanding of how things are, I've replaced objective reality with the Tao. That's what I mean when I say that Taoism is completely consistent with a scientific viewpoint.
Objective reality and the Tao are both metaphysical entities. They aren't true or false. They are useful or not useful in a particular situation.
One of the confusing aspects of the TTC is that it mixes cosmology, physical reality, morals, and politics all into one bowl. The idea that all of these grow out of the same source is alien to the way we think of it.
So, what does it mean to you?
As a matter of interest, the first exposure I had to Kant, was through a book by an Oxford-educated Indian professor of comparative religion, namely, T R V Murti, The Central Philosophy of Buddhism (1955). He compares Mah?y?na Buddhism with Kant, quite plausibly, in my view.
In any case, don ‘t loose site of the point: ‘the unnameable’ - what does that mean?
I took my best swing at it up in my second post.
Quoting T Clark
Bedtime.
I get from this that it is an immutable truism that the paragon teaches the scoundrel just through their presence or example. Anger and aggrieved advice or recriminations are without utility. What I also get from this is if I want to be of use and work towards a better 'way of being' remember that good and bad share the same space and need each other. Endless unhappy thoughts and interpersonal conflicts will be avoided if this is understood and acted out. And I will also avoid the path to being the very thing I think I hate.
Not all all.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsif.2017.0792
When the Principle is forgotten, the horses of war are raised even in the slums of the cities [/i]
Thoughts: this is one of my favourite quotes from Tao. I guess it is related to peace and order in the cities or villages. If you control the Principle and everything around you is under a composure state the “horses” will not be prepared to fight anyone but just being free in the green fields having a good life.
I believe the above is the crux of what Taoism is all about. Lao Tzu attempts to point at "something" that can't be pointed at. It reminds me of the time when I used my index finger to single out a person walking on the side of the road - I wanted to comment about the person for some reason - and my daughter severely admonished me saying, "don't point at people!" I struggled for a few moments, searching for the right words, and eventually...as fate would have it...I gave up. Lao Tzu was a rude fellow, pointing at the Tao like that.
Quoting T Clark
This sets up the paradox or disclaimer that underlies the entire book: all he can do here with these phrases is paint the shadows. They won’t directly tell us what the Tao is - even naming ‘the Tao’ is an approximation that implies we can imagine a point beyond, looking back. To entertain this illusion is to limit what it is we could possibly understand (by excluding ourselves), which then renders any depiction inaccurate as such. We could find some beautiful words, as Lao Tzu has, but that’s not the Tao.
Quoting T Clark
There are various ways to interpret this, but I find it’s clearest when I simply experience what it says, without trying to describe what it means to me for your benefit. But that doesn’t help the discussion, does it?
This reminds me of the nature of affect (desire). I like how he says ‘realise’, not ‘solve’ the mystery. Theoretically, free from affect, reality may seem potentially knowable, but in fact without affect we have no way to determine the uncertainty and inaccuracy of our knowledge.
We are irretrievably bound by affect, by valence and arousal. It is the medium of our consciousness, what we use to render the world. This is all we see: the manifestations (concepts) or predictions in terms of how their uncertainty and inaccuracy affects us. This suffering from prediction error (‘darkness within darkness’) is the most effective and efficient method we have to understand the world.
Me again, sorry but I can't seem to have enough of the Tao.
I have a very severe mental handicap - I can't think logicallu even if it were the case that my life depended on it and the other side of that coin seems to be able to apprehend/comprehend stuff that I can't put into words.
Let me try and be logical about the above stanza from this Eastern gem of philosophical poetry, the Tao Te Ching.
First off, everything that can be told i.e. that which can be expressed in language isn't/can't be the Tao [ref: The Tao that can be told is NOT the eternal Tao].
Secondly, that which can be named, again we see a linguistic slant here, is also NOT the Tao [ref: The name that can be named is not the eternal Name]
What does that leave us with? My hunch is Lao Tze is trying his very best to, and may have pressed into service his poetic license, express the inexpressible. He's taking on the role of the proverbial person who beats around the bush, secretly hoping I bet that all the noise will, at the very least, lead us to the location of Tao's bush.
Under the simplest of interpretations, Lao Tze want us to move beyond language but the million dollar question is whether that's a progression towards something new and wonderful or a regression towards something old and mundane? In short, is the Tao a step forward into an exciting future or a step backward into a been-there, done-that past?
Does he who thus spoke therefore know or not know?
Personally I practise this by consciously trying to speak much less than is my natural tendency.
This is really good. I don't think I'd thought it through as well as this.
Another thought, which may not be in the text - Lao Tzu doesn't talk about judging people much, but he does talk about seeing things as they are without putting words on it. Patiently waiting to see what the Tao has to show us. This is an excerpt from Verse 38:
[i]The Master does nothing,
yet he leaves nothing undone....
The moral man does something,
and when no one responds
he rolls up his sleeves and uses force.[/i]
I'm not sure if you see that connection.
I took a quick look. "Markov blanket" looks like an interesting concept, but I don't see how it is relevant. Let's not go down that path here. I'll take a look at the article.
I like that verse from Verse 46 too. Ellen Marie Chen has a more earthy translation:
[i]When the world practices Tao,
Fast horses are used for their dung.[/i]
Yes, I agree.
This is just the way I feel. When I talk about what Lao Tzu is trying to do, I say he is trying to take snapshots of the Tao. If we look at all the snapshots, we can get an overall understanding. Or I say he is cutting cross-sections through the Tao - maybe a cat scan. I like your metaphor of painting the shadows better.
Quoting Possibility
Yes, but this is true of all the verses. If we follow this, there's nothing to talk about. Hey.... wait a minute.
Quoting Possibility
This is really well put. Now I'm thinking about whether "affect" means the same as what Lao Tzu is calling "desire." It reminds me of this edited excerpt from Stephen Mitchell's translation of Verse 13:
[i]Hope is as hollow as fear...
What does it mean that hope is as hollow as fear?
Hope and fear are both phantoms
that arise from thinking of the self.
When we don't see the self as self,
what do we have to fear?[/i]
If you look, you'll see that no one else interprets this verse that way. Mitchell often takes liberties with the literal translation. Some people really don't like that.
There is nothing to understand.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open your mouth and you have already lost it.
Huang Po d. 850AD
Oh, no need to derail your thread (I'm fond of the Tao Te Ching myself so have been enjoying the exegesis). It was more just a testy jab at Wayfarer's usual assumption that anyone not on board with his brand of spiritualism must believe life to be no more complex than a child's automaton. There's beautiful mystery in complexity itself, with or without technical rigour.
Whilst I'm here though, I do have a Tao Te Ching related question, and it sounds like you might be the one to answer it. It always struck me how much of the writing is dedicated to statecraft. Right from around 50ish, we get a lot of, essentially, advice about how to govern. Is that too simplistic a reading, is it meant to be allegorical, or is he literally speaking to goveners and generals?
I think the idea of naming is really important.
[i]The unnamable is the eternally real.
Naming is the origin
of all particular things.[/i]
Naming is something people do. This has always meant to me that it is people who create "all particular things." In other discussions, a lot of people have disagreed with that. For me, it is central.
Yes, that's true. And, no. I don't think it's intended to be allegorical at all. I think maybe Lao Tzu considered those verses the most important. Some people think his political views are authoritarian. The TTC says things like:
I don't think these are authoritarian, but they are definitely paternalistic. We're not talking about democracy here. I like this one in particular - Verse 80 from Mitchell:
[i]If a country is governed wisely,
its inhabitants will be content.
They enjoy the labor of their hands
and don't waste time inventing
labor-saving machines.
Since they dearly love their homes,
they aren't interested in travel.
There may be a few wagons and boats,
but these don't go anywhere.
There may be an arsenal of weapons,
but nobody ever uses them.
People enjoy their food,
take pleasure in being with their families,
spend weekends working in their gardens,
delight in the doings of the neighborhood.
And even though the next country is so close
that people can hear its roosters crowing and its dogs barking,
they are content to die of old age
without ever having gone to see it.[/i]
I like that verse and it makes me think, but it also reminds me of "keep them barefoot and pregnant and in the kitchen."
All in all, the political verses are not my favorites.
I don't think understanding is what's needed, but most people can't get where Lao Tzu is going without trying to understand. It's trying and failing to understand that leads to the mystery.
DC Lau's translation is one we used a lot in my reading group. I like it. This is a verse I haven't really thought about a lot, but I think it's an important one. I do plan to come back to it as I go through the verses.
If you have more to say about it, go ahead. You don't need to wait till I come to it.
Great masters like Lao Tu were able to bridge the knowable and the unknowable as a way of pointing to The Truth.
It is interesting to note that 2500 years later, his work is still the second most popularly read book in the world after the Christian bible. I know I have read it no less than 100 times!
And, as I keep telling people - you can read it in an hour.
I think it is both in the sense that the "Empire" is presented as a condition that involves all those who participate in it rather than a result of a specific class pursuing articulated ends. The Tao Te Ching can be read as a conversation with the Analects of Confucius in this regard. There are agreements and disagreements between the two but they share a sensibility regarding the defects of Draconian approaches to order. Consider line 2:3 followed by Muller's comment:
[i]When people see some things as beautiful,
other things become ugly.
When people see some things as good,
other things become bad.[/i]
I am ambivalent about this stanza. Maybe I mean confused. You can’t have good without bad. Heaven needs a hell. All the value judgments we make in the world seem to depend on a choice between two opposites. Those opposites are… artificial…unnecessary…misleading? If we are seeing the Tao without words, there are no distinctions between good and bad, large and small, etc. I’ve wondered if the dualistic distinctions don’t reflect the structure of our brains and minds. A world of yes/no distinctions is simpler and easier to process than one of unbroken continuity. We’re digital.
How does this fit into the conceptual framework of the 10,000 things – the named multiplicity of reality? Identifying things as trees, roller skates, and electrons is not a dualistic distinction. Are the dualistic and non-dualistic distinctions the same or different in some fundamental way?
[i]Being and non-being create each other.
Difficult and easy support each other.
Long and short define each other.
High and low depend on each other.
Before and after follow each other.[/i]
This really goes along with the previous stanza. I break it out because it’s the first time being and non-being are discussed. To me, being and non-being are very central. In oversimple terms – Non-being = Tao; Being = 10,000 Things. That opens the question – does the Tao exist? In any dictionary I looked in, “being” and “existence” are used in each other’s definitions. The question of what existence is is at the heart of the “mystery” of the Tao.
[i]Therefore the Master
acts without doing anything
and teaches without saying anything.
Things arise and she lets them come;
things disappear and she lets them go.
She has but doesn't possess,
acts but doesn't expect.
When her work is done, she forgets it.
That is why it lasts forever.[/i]
Acting without doing anything comes up a lot in the TTC. It’s at the heart of how the Tao connects to human action. It’s called "wu wei." Pronounced something like woo way. It’s not too hard to understand if you try to become aware of your own internal experience when you intend or do something. It definitely contradicts the prevalent view that our actions are consciously intended and planned. In the TTC, conscious action is seen as degraded from wu wei. I agree strongly. When I look inside, I find that very few of my actions grow out of consciousness. Consciousness interferes with action – stops it or modifies it – but doesn’t create it.
I read the importance of wu wei as recognizing that there is a process underway that is generated by the play of opposites but does not consume the opposed elements that keep reproducing the things that are. So whatever the Tao might be, it is something that establishes that outcome rather than a product of it. The reason it is difficult to talk about such a factor is that we talk about absolutely every thing else in a different way. So, to the extent we can draw a distinction between being and non-being, the Tao is elsewhere. Instead of waiting for a Godel to show up to bust up the complete set idea, this view excludes that as a possibility from the get go. I don't agree that "consciousness interferes with action." I think it is more like "talking about action" interferes with consciousness.
One quality about the "10,000 things" that has always fascinated me is that it is a finite number. Saying there is a very large number of beings around one is different than saying there is an infinity nobody could find their place amongst.
I wonder if this means in choosing to think a thing good or bad, you create a reversal by this very thought action. Maybe it means that the more you conceptualize life along these lines, the more you create its opposition. Do not actively label may be a better approach. In a way, this sits alongside Hamlet's 'for there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so'.
Thank you for the invitation.
Being a "worn" person of much experience but little wisdom, I have long heard this verse as addressed to me as one "who does things" in a tutorial about not doing some things; recognizing my worth but asking more from me.
I have not read Confucius. I probably should. When I've discussed it with others who have read him they have claimed, as you and Muller indicate, that Lao Tzu is sometimes considered the "anti-Confucius." That the TTC was written specifically as a response to him.
‘Objectivity’ is a modern idea. The word itself came into use around the time of Leibniz. It is associated with the emergence of the exact sciences. Taoism is not objective in that sense, but allegorical, metaphorical, and poetic. Which doesn’t mean it’s not true.
Quoting T Clark
There is a tension in Chinese culture between Lao Tzu, representing social non-conformity and renunciation, and Confucius, representing filial piety and social convention. Confucianism sees Lao Tzu as a vagabond or a rascal, and Taoism sees Confucius as a stuffy bureaucrat. It's a dialectical tension in Chinese philosophy.
I've found a translation of the text here https://taoism.net/tao/tao-te-ching-online-translation/
which seems good quality.
From the first verse:
Note the juxtaposition of 'without desire' (which is related to wu-wei, not acting, the detachment of the sage) and the 'observation of the essence', with those who are 'with desire', who 'observes it's manifestations (i.e. the 10,000 things). 'Differing in name' - the named being 'the conditioned', the domain of phenomena.
I've always thought that wu wei was action that took place, was motivated, without the interplay of opposites. Which makes me ask - are the interplay of opposites and consciousness the same thing? That brings me back to the confusion I discussed in relation to the first stanza of Verse 2.
Quoting Valentinus
Isn't "talking about action" the same thing as consciousness? Even if it's just talking to ourselves.
I guess I don't see this as a choice, at least not a conscious one. Thinking in dualistic terms happens automatically, at least in our, and apparently Lao Tzu's, culture. It takes an effort to stop doing it. Effort is not the right word.
Quoting Tom Storm
This brought another verse to mind. I think it's relevant, but I'm not sure that will be clear. From Stephen Mitchell's Verse 36:
[i]If you want to shrink something,
you must first allow it to expand.
If you want to get rid of something,
you must first allow it to flourish.[/i]
My reading - It's the resistance to something bad that leads to its growth. If you want to stop something, stop fighting it. This stanza really resonates with me personally.
My intention was to hold up the concepts of "objective reality" and "Tao" and compare them. Contrast them. I think the ideas of the Tao and objective reality fill similar roles in their ontological systems. In many situations, I think the Tao is a more useful, less misleading way of seeing things.
Quoting Wayfarer
In my experience, what Lao Tzu wrote about the process by which the 10,000 things grow out of the essence, the Tao, is contradictory and confusing. I don't think that's his fault. After all, these are the ideas of people from a very foreign culture written 2,500 years ago. Also, I think the ideas, to be put into words, have to seem contradictory. I also wonder if making things seem paradoxical is used intentionally to put us in the right state of mind to accept his insights. This process is the idea I have spent the most time on while reading the TTC.
.
I hear you - I guess I said 'choice' because that's how we talk at home. I would have been as comfortable with your formulation.
Quoting T Clark
My newbie take on this comports with yours. There seem to be a lot of these sorts of intriguing constructions. Do not do the thing you think, it is the reverse of what you think. I can't quite formulate this.
The big question is, is something lost in the translation?
Did the stanza I quoted about shrinking and expanding seem relevant to this issue to you? I wasn't sure if that would make sense.
As for not being able to formulate what this means - Lao Tzu's words seem to contradict each other between verses or even within the same verse. The same words mean different things in different places. If you read more than one translation, you often get very different readings. If you get different people together, they have different readings. In the reading group I was in, we had a member who was a linguist. Even with his help, we were always struggling.
In the Semitic faiths - Judaism, Christianity and Islam - the ‘supreme principle’ is idealised as a deity, God, or Allah. In Taoism, the ‘supreme principle’ is idealised as ‘the Way’. In Neo-Platonism, the ‘supreme principle’ is idealised as ‘the One’. I don’t want to say that all these are equivalent, or that they mean the same thing, but there are certain fundamental ideas in these cultures that you find expressed in these different forms. (To say that they’re all the same or all mean the same thing is to reduce them to a kind of cross-cultural melange, which is not my intention.)
The point of that is that these different cultural traditions have varied ways of conceiving of the nature of ‘creation’. Obviously in the Western tradition, the orthodox (small ‘o’) doctrine is that ‘God created the world’ (although I think this understanding has become somewhat ossified, in practice.) In Neoplatonism, the world ‘emanates’ from the One, through a series of cascading ‘downward’ steps to ‘here below’ (which is a very dynamic concept). In Taoism, ‘the nameless’ is, in some ways analogous to the role played by ‘the One’ in Neoplatonism. This is not to say that ‘the Tao’ is like, or is, a creator deity or God. It’s a different conception, but it’s still concerned with the ‘origin’ or ‘the source’ of ‘all things’. So it occupies a similar role in Chinese culture that God might in earlier Christian culture, but without saying that ‘the Tao’ is, therefore, a God, because plainly it’s not.
I think the reason you find it confusing is because it is indeed a very hard notion to grasp. It has to be allowed that the sages - such as Lao Tzu - are accepted to have insights that we, the hoi polloi, do not. Of course, that understanding is very much at odds with the understanding of liberal democracies such as ours. But I think we have to allow that there really might be those with direct insight into this reality.
Finally, Chinese culture is, of course, vastly different to European, Semitic, or Greek. One characteristic I’ve noticed is the extremely terse nature of some of the ideas represented by Chinese characters. For example the Chinese character ‘mu’ means ‘the unmanifest’ and is one of the main emblems or symbols of Chinese Buddhism. As such it has a depth of meaning which is not at all obvious. You have to allow for the cultural context.
Sure. That's why it's good to read more than one translation. Also, I think differences in translations mirror differences in meaning in the TTC itself. I'm not sure about that. For me, the whole exercise is impressionistic.
Most importantly - this is not an intellectual exercise and I don't think Lao Tzu intended it to be. I think he was trying to transmit an experience to us. The Tao is not a thing, it is an experience. If you can experience that, it can really clarify what he's trying to say. The Tao is a pathway. That is how TTC is often translated - The Book of the Way.
In some of the Abrahamic faiths, didn't they have prohibitions against speaking the name of God? The idea that the name of God is unspeakable seems similar to how Taoism handles it. Is that you are saying?
Quoting Wayfarer
In later verses, there is a cosmology of sorts. It seems to be a myth about how the world was created but also how the world is constantly recreated. The Tao is constantly creating the 10,000 things and they are constantly returning to the Tao to be sustained, because they're really the same thing. Except they're not. It took me a long time to see that, but I think it's really important.
Quoting Wayfarer
I agree that the ideas are hard to grasp. More importantly, they are difficult to experience. Maybe sages have insights we don't have, but I think Lao Tzu's intention is to lead us to those insights. More than that, I think he is trying to lead us to an experience. Maybe he didn't see the hoi polloi as his audience, but that doesn't mean we can't follow his lead.
Quoting Wayfarer
Definitely, but I don't think that excludes us from following the path. I feel much more at home here than I do in the religion I was raised in, protestant Christianity, or in western philosophy.
Quite right. The origin of the name 'Yahweh' was a string of characters called the 'tetragrammaton', which was literally un-sayable. This was to convey the unknowability of God. There were other names used in liturgical and ceremonial contexts, such as Elohim.
And I agree that Tao is generally a cyclical cosmology. It doesn't seem to have an 'in the beginning' in the literal sense that the Bible does.
I too was very drawn to Taoism when I discovered it, although I think it's quintessentially Chinese in many respects. My Anglo physiology doesn't really suit it. ;-)
As I said - when I first encountered Taoism, I immediately felt at home. I still do. I don't ask for more, no matter what my physiology is. Much of western philosophy feels very alien to me. I'm more comfortable with religions, probably because I was an acolyte at Mt. Olivet Methodist Church when I was a kid. But religions just don't work for me.
The natural question is, if Taoism not an intellectual exercise why does it feel like one? After all, it's being discussed in a philosophy forum, no less. Too, I remember Taoism as being classified as a philosophy although the source that made that claim categorizes it as eastern philosophy, implicit in that is another claim viz. that eastern and western minds differ in fundamental ways.
Perhaps the takeaway is that Taoism isn't amenable to analysis as understood in Western philosophy as the application of logic with the utmost rigor. This interpretation seems right on the money for Taoism is basically a collection of occasions in which the universe defies generalizations western philosophy is so fond of. The lesson of Taoism then is that instead of getting our knickers in a twist trying to construct better and better generalizations to accommodate exceptions what we should be doing is assume a flexible stance, a necessity if one is to recognize that each situation is unique in and of itself and deserves to be treated as such and not in accordance to some rule/principle that's intended to cover all cases...because that's "impossible"???
Verse number 22.
Thoughts: patience and simplicity. Everything has their properly time. We do not have to rum so quickly along the life. Everything will end up filled at the end of the day. If we multiply when we don’t have to our life will be disturbed
This also reminded me of Kant as you later mentioned. Another thing your commentary to "a good man is a bad man's teacher" reminded me of was the legal positivist idea of a Grundnorm. That last one might seem really strange considering what it attempted and was concerned about but the implication is the Grundnorm stays out of reach without a possibility to really name it.
Quoting Valentinus
Yeah, they seem somewhat at odds with the more personal passages, but I appreciate your thoughts, both.
I agree that is a great website. I found it earlier and mentioned it to @Jack Cummins.
We are both reading the Chuang Tzu or Zhuangzi but at a different pace. As you say, many translations available and sometimes difficult to choose. I chose the one by Martin Palmer.
Re the Tao Te Ching, I bought the book a long time ago. Like you, I settled on the Stephen Mitchell translation which I pick up now.
A reminder to myself from his Foreword:
'...Lao Tzu deeply cared about society. If society means the welfare of one's fellow human beings: his book is...a treatise on the art of government, whether of a country or of a child...
...his insistence on wei wu wei, literally ' doing, not- doing' has been seen as passivity. Nothing could be further from the truth.'
Mitchell gives the example of non-action in the way an athlete or dancer can enter a state of effortless movement 'without any interference of the conscious will'.
' Lao Tzu's emphasis on softness...the opposite of rigidity...synonymous with suppleness, adaptability, endurance...[his] central figure is a man or woman whose life is in perfect harmony with the way things are. This is not an idea; it is a reality...'
'...the teaching of the Tao Te Ching is moral in the deepest sense'.
I like how Mitchell describes the lack of concept of sin.
It isn't seen as 'a force to resist but as an opaqueness' - as in the case of a dirty window, the light can't shine through.
'Freedom from moral categories' allows for compassion for the wicked and selfish.
I used to agree with the idea that nobody was 'evil' as such. It was only their actions or behaviour that were. I still don't hold with the use of the word 'evil' as applied ( in politics) to those who oppose you or are seen as 'unpatriotic'.
Now, I am not so sure. I have caught myself irate at the the likes of Trump.
Perhaps it's time to reflect.
Perhaps this is a well timed discussion...
So much anger seems to be flowing in all directions right now.
I haven't read all the thread as yet. I don't know if it also says that a bad man can be a good man's teacher.
Also don't know much about legal positivism or Grundnorm, strangely enough.
However, a quick wiki peek:
'...H. L. A. Hart, refers to the theory as a `needless duplication' of the `living reality' of the courts and officials actually identifying the law in accordance with the constitution's rules. It is mystifying to posit a rule beyond these rules, which adds, superfluously in Hart's view, that the constitution is to be obeyed'.
Here, 'the living reality' is the phrase that jumps out at me.
Given that the Grundnorm or basic norm is a concept which forms an underlying basis for a legal system, how real is it. Is it not just an other theory which can be interpreted in all kinds of ways.
You seem to interpret it as 'staying out of reach without a possibility to really name it'.
Clearly, I don't understand this and a quick skim through wiki is insufficient.
Probably my downfall...not reading carefully...
Grateful for further clarification.
Ah, now that makes sense to me. It rings with my idea of 'gaps between the snaps' when it comes to discovering family history.
The quality behind or surrounding the data of everyday life.
Just as photos or biographical facts are good starting points, they are only moments in time. We are more than that...
I think he was saying that, sure, but I think he was saying a lot more too. The Tao is not hard to speak about. It is unspeakable. The Tao comes before words. Or maybe that's the same thing you were saying
Quoting TheMadFool
Sure, but there's a lot more going on than just that.
I just went online and looked. A lot of people have thought the same thing.
Quoting Benkei
Not familiar. I'll take a look
More generally, most western philosophy I've read seems to have a similar idea - things existing beyond words. Sometimes something important. But it always seems to be a little chunk off in the corner of the big picture somewhere rather than the biggest picture of all.
I think that rulers and bureaucrats were among the main audience Lao Tzu was writing for. So I think discussing politics makes sense. Which doesn't change the fact that I don't get much out of those verses.
This verse, I think, refers again to the central paradox, and to the role of affect. This is how we qualitatively differentiate experience - by valence, positive and negative. But in relation to the Tao this distinction isn’t digital - it’s relational. There is no definitive line between good and bad because reality is not just black and white, it’s shades of grey. Have you tried to define a shade of grey? In computer graphics, we refer to a percentage of black, but this percentage implies a total of 100%, and therefore the existence of a percentage of white. Any description of a shade of grey is necessarily relational.
Quoting T Clark
The difference between this type of differentiation and conceptual distinction is dimensional, in my view. Good and bad, beautiful and ugly, difficult and easy, long and short - they’re are all transcendental or aesthetic ideas. Naming a particular thing consolidates the relational structure of a concept, effectively isolating it from other concepts. Valence, on the other hand, points out that nothing is ever really isolated, that there is no being except in relation to non-being, no after without a before.
Quoting T Clark
This reminds me of Deacon’s absentials. When we’re not choosing, we’re still choosing. It’s about being conscious of what we allow and enable by our inaction (ignorance, isolation and exclusion) as well as by our action (awareness, connection and collaboration). It’s about the fact that we are continuously in relation to the Tao even when we’re deliberately not. In this sense, too, we understand the Tao most clearly when we’re not striving to identify and attribute an intentional act, a rightful possession, a personal accomplishment, etc. We are closer to the Tao when it appears as if we are, do and have nothing at all.
I've read Thomas Merton's translation of the Chuang Tzu. It doesn't work for me as well as the TTC. It's less figurative and less poetic. The stories don't work for me as well as more direct verses in the TTC. Ironically, the fact that the TTC is more intellectual makes it easier for me to work with, since I'm a pretty intellectual person. Still - I need to spend more time with the Chuang Tzu.
Maybe you and @Jack Cummins can start a thread about the Chuang Tzu sometime.
Quoting Amity
There are a lot of commentaries, some recent and some written 2,000 years ago. Reading them is like reading different translations - everybody has their own way of seeing things. I used to think, who are these people who think their opinion about the TTC is worth thinking about. Then, as I started working on this thread I realized - Hey! Now I'm writing a commentary.
I don't know if you can tell, but I'm having a really good time.
My family have been going back through old family pictures over the last few months. My brothers, my cousin, and I are the only ones who remember my parents when they were younger and my grandparents. We're all in our 60s or 70s. My children, especially my daughter, have been expressing a desire to see what's up before we are gone. There are hundreds of pictures, most of which are of no interest. We don't know who the people are or where they are. But we are building up a picture of our family.
Yes, I feel that was what he was pointing to.
The English translation of the word “Tao” could very well be “the way of nature”. The way of nature comes before words. The name of something, is not the thing itself, rather just an abstract representation. Direct experience, is the way that we perceive nature, so if I’m pointing to the moon, one may look at my finger or where it’s pointing, but whatever one sees will be experienced directly.
You're talking about affect and valence. What do those mean in this context? Value? Preference? Is it like one of those surveys - on a scale of 1 to 10, how do you rate this? Is that what you mean by "relational?"
Quoting Possibility
Except I don't think Lao Tzu is talking about judgments and distinctions as shades of gray. I think he's saying they are illusions. "Illusion" is probably not the right word. That's more of a Buddhist thing, but it's something like that.
Quoting Possibility
I'm a bit lost here.
Quoting Possibility
Can you clarify a bit. Maybe make more of a correspondence of your ideas and Lao Tzu's. Define some terms.
According to Wikipedia:
Tao or Dao from Chinese: ?; is a Chinese word signifying the "way", "path", "route", road
Quoting Present awareness
It's not the way most of us perceive nature most of the time. That's why we need the Tao Te Ching.
[i]If you overesteem great men,
people become powerless.
If you overvalue possessions,
people begin to steal.[/i]
[i]The Master leads
by emptying people's minds
and filling their cores,
by weakening their ambition
and toughening their resolve.
He helps people lose everything they know,
everything they desire,
and creates confusion
in those who think that they know.[/i]
[i]Practice not-doing,
and everything will fall into place.[/i]
I’m not sure how much I have to say on this verse. Others, please see if you can fill in the blanks.
I do have this overall comment – There is a general theme, maybe more of an undertone, in the TTC. Emptying, releasing, shrinking, weakening, losing, surrendering, waiting, withholding, giving things up, allowing, seeing, not doing.
By inviting us to follow a way that cannot be explained in the same manner as those we are accustomed to, are we not being asked to become aware of something we were missing before?
As a part of the invitation, the appearance of things and events that we are in the habit of only talking about in our system of names are said to be born from that element we have been missing.
So some part of the instruction to "not act" is recognizing how much happens without a certain agency as we were confined to before making the acquaintance of the missing understanding. The change in our understanding and restraining from leaping into action uncovers the way things actually work and come about.
The Tao is obviously central to the experience that Lao Tzu is trying to lead us to. For me, wu wei, action without action, is also central. I've thought quite a bit about how they are connected. I think you've expressed it very well, in a way I hadn't thought of before.
When we get to the second half of the TTC, Lao Tzu writes about Te, which is usually translated as "virtue" and sometimes as "power" although everyone seems to agree that neither one of those is quite right. It's a concept I've struggled with. I have come to think of Te as the expression of Tao in each of our lives. I think that's what you are talking about. I'm not sure.
I've read what you wrote three times and I'll have to read it some more. Thank you.
Quoting T Clark
The rule/principle that's "problematic" in the above verse is that fast horses should be used for racing, to serve as conveyance for messengers, in the military, etc.; dung is the last thing on people's minds when they see/hear of fast horses. I believe this theme defines and is the heart of Taoism. I wish I could remember it's Western equivalent but the only thought that crosses my mind comes from logic and is called the Fallacy Of The Accident. Perhaps the point Lao Tzu wants to make is that reality can't be/shouldn't be thought of as a docile and obedient ass - behavior predictable - but that it can, when one least expects it, be as unruly and willful as a wild horse - behavior unpredictable. Since reality is of such a character, it becomes impossible to zero in on an all-encompassing, fixed "law" that unifies it all and thus "the Tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao".
Quoting TheMadFool
Quoting javi2541997
The line I quoted is from the same verse, 46, just a different translation. There's more to the verse than Javi2541997's quote. Here's the whole thing. Ellen Marie Chen translation. I don't know what version Javi was using:
[i]When the world practices Tao,
Fast horses are used for their dung.
When the world does not practice Tao,
War horses give birth at the borders.
Among offenses (tsui), none is greater than having what is desirable.
Among calamities (huo), none is greater than not knowing contentment.
Among blames (chiu), none is greater than the desire for gain.
Therefore the contentment that comes from knowing contentment
Is a long lasting contentment.[/i]
To boil down, paraphrase, and butcher - When the ruler of a nation fails to follow the Tao, there will be war.
I was using a Spanish version from Luis Racionero. I tried to translate it in the most accurate English possible. Nevertheless, I’m going to type the verses in Spanish just if you want to translate it.
[i]Cuando reina el Principio (al ser perfecta la paz), los caballos de guerra trabajan en el campo
Cuando se olvida el Principio (al estar en guerra la orden del día), se crían caballos de batalla hasta en los arrabales de las ciudades[/i]
That observation about utility and perspective reminds me of one my favorite passages from Zhuangzi:
It is always the responsibility of the good ones to take care of the good and bad things happening in the world.
This is how Google translates your Spanish version:
When the principle reigns (to be perfect), the warriors work in the camp. When Olivida the Principio (to be in the war of the Order of the Day), he creates warriors fighting in the cities of the cities.
I think we'll trust your translations. As I said, there are dozens of them out there. No reason yours shouldn't be welcome.
As I wrote in response to a post from @Amity, I've read Thomas Merton's translation of the Chuang Tzu/Zhuangzi, but I haven't spent much time or effort on it. I think Merton's translation is just an excerpt. Not certain. It's something I need to spend more time with if I expect all of you to think of me as a great Taoist scholar.
What I have read in the Zhuangzi isn't as compelling to me as the Tao Te Ching. The TTC is poetry and the Zhuangzi is mostly stories. The stories are interesting, but the poetry bores right into me. You, Amity, and Jack Cummins should get together and start a thread. I'll participate enthusiastically.
Although there is also a reciprocality. The bad man provides the good man with something too.
There is no reciprocality in the true sense. If you look at statements 1 and 2, they're both jobs for the good man. In both statements, arrows point only to one direction. Better yet, the two statements are one and the same meaning.
Just for your information, here is the entire verse that contains the lines @Tom Storm was quoting. Verse 27 of Stephen Mitchell. I'm not sure if it makes any difference to what you wrote, but I think it at least puts it in a different light. I thought you might be interested.
[i]A good traveler has no fixed plans
and is not intent upon arriving.
A good artist lets his intuition
lead him wherever it wants.
A good scientist has freed himself of concepts
and keeps his mind open to what is.
Thus the Master is available to all people
and doesn't reject anyone.
He is ready to use all situations
and doesn't waste anything.
This is called embodying the light.
What is a good man but a bad man's teacher?
What is a bad man but a good man's job?
If you don't understand this, you will get lost,
however intelligent you are.
It is the great secret.[/i]
Quoting T Clark
I like this.
I don't see this contradicting what I said previously, though -- the good ones are always responsible for the good and bad things happening in the world.
Quoting Caldwell
I think you're right.
The good ones are users of the world. :blush:
Thank you for this topic, TC.
You're welcome, but I'm mostly doing this for myself. This is fun.
LOL! You embody the good man, indeed! :grin:
Affect consists of valence/attention and arousal/effort, and is measurable only by one OR the other of these - like a photon. When we quantitatively measure one aspect, that measurement is in necessary qualitative relation to the other aspect. This is what I think Lao Tzu is trying to describe here. He’s referring to the ‘on a scale’ part of those surveys. To differentiate affect, we qualify upper and lower limitations of experience on a particular scale or value structure: good and bad, beautiful and ugly, one and ten, and then we can not just name but quantify the 10,000 things in necessary relation to these limitations and each other.
Quoting T Clark
You’re right, illusion is the wrong word. I think of them as constructs, like scaffolding. I agree that this qualification of upper and lower limitations is arbitrary, but it’s a dimensionally different kind of naming to the 10,000 things. Good and bad, black and white, beautiful and ugly - these are not naming things or concepts but boundaries to value structures that differentiate our relation to the Tao.
I’m saying that black and white, for instance, we have arbitrarily named as upper and lower limitations to the variable quality of greyness. Good and bad, beautiful and ugly, etc are also nothing but constructs of our own limited relations. I’m saying that the variability of greyness can be differentiated and named as particular ‘shades’ only in relation to black and white. The variability of our experience can be differentiated and named as particular things only in relation to these upper and lower limitations of value structure. This is how we make initial sense of our relation to the world.
I think it’s important throughout the TTC to keep in mind the qualifications set up from the beginning: that we can’t really tell anything about the Tao (any description is partial); and that we must recognise our understanding as coloured by desire (affect).
In Western culture, we don’t like these words. There’s a sense of humility to them that undermines what we tend to think of as individual achievement. Our interpretation of this verse is very Westernised - the concepts jar in a similar way to Buddhism’s approach to suffering. Submission, loss and not-doing carry a negative value for us - but in the previous verse we learned that this negative value is nothing but a construct from our affected relation to the Tao. If we were free from desire (affect), there would be no negative value or unpleasantness to loss, weakness or emptiness. They would simply be a quality of greyness that is closer to black than to white.
He’s not saying don’t esteem great men or value possessions - that’s black and white thinking. The Master has ‘mastered’ the art of balancing the variability of experience, despite affect that renders ‘surrender’ for instance as a negative term.
Not-doing refers to the earlier verse: to act without doing anything, or teach without saying anything, is to recognise that mastery is not about control but about balance. It’s not about always striving for ‘good’ and eliminating ‘bad’, but about recognising that sometimes we need to let relatively ‘bad’ things happen, or to give people silence to work things out for themselves, or to seek nothing. If we’re constantly trying to do, say and be everything, then we end up exhausted, unappreciated and seemingly thwarted at every turn.
Got it. I will stand clear from relating the discussion to other points of reference than the text you are interested in.
No, no, no, no, no. You've misunderstood me completely. I'm happy to have you bring in stuff from other sources. I'm just not as familiar with the Chuang Tzu as I am with the Tao Te Ching. Feel free to bring in more if it seems relevant.
I think it helps to relate this to verse 2 - where ‘good’ and ‘bad’ are relational constructs and a masterful teacher can teach without saying anything. A ‘good man’ is named as such only in relation to a ‘bad man’, but he should then redress the balance in this experience, to share the ‘good’ value ascribed to him with those who lack it. When we label a ‘bad man’ we are relating this to our own apparent ‘good’. So it is not enough to simply label him - in doing so we should recognise that we have a comparative ‘good’ that we have not shared with him.
[i]The Tao is like a well:
used but never used up.
It is like the eternal void:
filled with infinite possibilities.
It is hidden but always present.
I don't know who gave birth to it.
It is older than God.[/i]
Here’s Ellen Marie Chen’s translation, which I like better. Mitchell takes liberties with the text when the mood strikes him. Chen has included the Chinese words in parentheses in some cases:
[i]Tao is a whirling emptiness (ch'ung),
Yet (erh) in use (yung) is inexhaustible (ying).
Fathomless (yuan),
It seems to be the ancestor (tsung) of ten thousand beings.
It blunts the sharp,
Unties the entangled,
Harmonizes the bright,
Mixes the dust.
Dark (chan),
It seems perhaps to exist (ts'un).
I do not know whose child it is,
It is an image (hsiang) of what precedes God (Ti).[/i]
According to this verse, the Tao is:
Emptiness doesn’t whirl, does it? Inexhaustible in doing what? Maybe in creating and recreating the 10,000 things. There is a theme of return in the TTC. It comes up more in later verses. I struggled with the idea for a long time. Now, I’ve come to think the Tao doesn’t create the world once, but is creating it over and over again, continuously.
And what about “an image that proceeds God?” So, the Tao is older than God. That means, I guess, that God is one of the 10,000 things. That can’t be right. Can you imagine a more radical idea than that? This is my favorite line in the TTC.
According to this verse, the Tao seems:
I’m not sure what Lao Tzu means by “seems.” It usually means “appears” and may imply that appearance is misleading. Nothing can be before or greater than the Tao. It comes before God. The Tao can’t be “anyone’s child.” It is the ancestor of, creates, the multiplicity of things. Lao Tzu sometimes uses family relationships to describe spiritual connections. This is Chen’s translation of a stanza of Verse 52:
[i]The world (t'ien hsia) has an origin (shih),
Which is the world's (t'ien hsia) mother (mu).
Having reached the mother,
(We) know her child.
Having known the child,
Return and abide by its mother.[/i]
As for “It seems perhaps to exist,” I have always thought that the Tao doesn’t exist. It is, after all, non-being. Does “seems” mean that it is misleading to think of the Tao as existing? I don’t know.
It is only relevant if it is relevant. I understand keeping the frame of reference within one's experience to discuss it honestly. Suggesting that something is outside of a matter of interest is always something to reference. On that basis, saying: "Feel free to bring in more if it seems relevant." is an odd invitation. Nobody would bother to do so for any other reason.
What you've written in this post is a very good summary of the issues addressed in the TTC. You have a way of talking about the text that's different than mine. It helps me see things from a different direction. Speaking of which, you posted a response before this one that I haven't responded to yet. That's because I'm struggling with it a bit. I'll get back to you.
Quoting Possibility
Throughout the TTC there are verses that make this point over and over - The danger of success. The damage done by the struggle for advancement and recognition.
Quoting Possibility
I was thinking about this too. Not-doing and acting without acting are certainly related, but I don't think they are the same thing. I've gotten in discussions previously - "So, is Lao Tzu saying we should just sit back and wait for things to happen?" Well.. I guess sort of. For me, not-doing is a reflection of patience and trust in the natural way of things. Letting things take their natural course. Wu wei, acting without acting, refers to action that is spontaneous.
The references to the 'nameless', the 'formeless' and so on, have many counterparts in other forms of Asian mystical spirituality, they arise from trance states (samadhi) which is hardly known in Western philosophy. The Taoist adept 'realises' unity with the source through these states, which is far from the intellectual philosophy of the Western tradition. I suppose one of the nearest analogs is 'theosis' in the Orthodox monastic tradition, although that is a more theistically-oriented tradition than Taoism. Carl Jung was one of the early pioneers of this study and wrote extensively on the Taoist text, The Secret of the Golden Flower.
It is my understanding that Taoism is both a philosophy and a religion. They both grew out of Lao Tzu's and other sage's work, but they are different. Taoist philosophy does not include magic, alchemy, sexual practices, immortality, or any of the other practices sometimes attributed to it. Certainly the To Te Ching does not. Or do I have it wrong?
I don't mean to give the impression that your post is not welcome.
My issue with this is how do you apply this approach to creating social change? In relation to progress created by activists in women's suffrage, race equality, gay rights, etc - should they just have waited? Or is there a different nuance to acting without acting?
Do you remember what book it was. Sounds interesting.
Quoting Tom Storm
Taoism is traditional and is likely not 'woke' in my opinion. It's generally pretty indifferent to politics, Lao Tzu was anarchist in spirit.
I really don't know what your post means. The terminology you use is not familiar. Are they psychological? Philosophical?
I must warn you though, the Western spirit of wanting to make sense of the world in terms of generalities still persists in that concept.
I think it’s the danger of particular success, individual advancement and personal recognition, especially in a way that divides the Tao with ignorance, isolation and exclusion. This is different to a more general idea of working (including not-doing) in awareness of, connection to and collaboration with the Tao. I don’t think the TTC advocates for stagnation so much as a dynamic overall balance. Advancement, for instance, requires a linear view of time, but even physics now tells us that the universal aspect of time is not linear - a fact we ignore at our local level.
Quoting T Clark
I agree with your description here of not-doing, but I’m not sure if I quite agree with wu wei as spontaneous action. I think perhaps this has something to do with intentionality. It’s more about our insistence on being the one to act, which relates again to seeking personal recognition. We can intend an outcome and set up conditions for it to occur without being the one to perform any action that can be credited with the outcome. For me, wu wei is collaboration that resists localised attribution of success, advancement or recognition.
I understand. I wasn't looking for 'woke' just support of progress.
I think it has to do with losing sight of our relation to the Tao. There is a risk in focusing only on what is ‘good’ or only on what is ‘bad’ that loses sight of these as constructs naming the upper and lower limits of one qualitative relation. It’s not the good or the bad that matters, but the ongoing relation between them.
Sorry - the terms I’m using here refer to a collaboration of neuroscience and psychology in understanding how the mind constructs and utilises concepts in relation to sensory information. The work of Lisa Feldman Barrett in describing both brain states and conceptual predictions using affect not only demonstrates its significance in dissolving any apparent mind-body problem, but helps to align the temporal relativity of consciousness with that of physics.
This may seem unrelated, except that the TTC is very clear about us being bound by affect (desire), and the implications this has on our ability to understand the Tao (objective reality). This is something that Barrett is also clear about. So when Lao Tzu talks about value concepts in this way...
Quoting T Clark
...he’s talking about the role of affect in how we make sense of the world. Beautiful, ugly, good and bad are the “manifestations” we see (that we construct) while “caught in desire”. I think it helps for us to understand what affect is and how we construct these value hierarchies from our affected relation to the Tao.
Very interesting. I was just reading a post from a Zen teacher about how Zen enlightenment is realised by and in the body. I have a feeling that if I understood that better I’d be in a much better place.
I thought not. Mind you using the word progress was a bad word and bound not to fit.
I ask because both are recognized to be "eastern" in spirit but there's a major difference.
Buddhism makes a big deal out of logic and professes to be rational in spirit and it's systematic approach to reality as we know it bears a striking resemblance to mathematical axiomatic systems beginning as it does with four postulates aka four noble truths and Buddhism is presented as a set of beliefs and practices that proceed logically from them.
Taoism, on the other hand, doesn't lay so much stress on logic, relying on common sense rather any rigorous logical systems. Plus, Taoism's emphasis on exceptions to rules maybe intended to expose the utter uselessness of logic considering the fact that, drawing from Aristotle, for at least categorical syllogisms there must be at a minimum one universal statement (All A's are B's or No A's are B's).
The two meet in Zen and that's where it gets interesting I suppose.
Thanks for this. I think it is in reading such stories that we can see the importance of the Tao to everyday life in China. And possibly to any of us commenting on the Tao Te Ching today.
Like @T Clark your post made me want to read this journal. Or about how Chinese medicine is intertwined with the Tao. I know this is taking the thread away from the original intention.
However, I thought this small excerpt might be useful and wouldn't harm...
From: read://http_fiveimmortals.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ffiveimmortals.com%2Fwudang-tao%2Ftaoist-medicine%2F
[Sorry, link doesn't seem to work]
Wow, that last saying made me smile. Right now in TPF there's a discussion about Kafka's aphorism:
' A cage went in search of a bird'. I read somewhere that he extracted his aphorisms from the journals that he kept. A big thumbs up to all those wise birds who captured their meditations in golden pages.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/10031/a-cage-went-in-search-of-a-bird-
Quoting TheMadFool
Popular wisdom says that Chinese Buddhism in particular was deeply influenced by Taoism and that Ch’an Buddhism (Japanese Zen) had many Taoist elements. However, a Zen teacher I know and respect is highly critical of this interpretation. But I differ with him on that, I think there is a well-documented influence between the two.
It’s not right to say Buddhism is ‘rational in spirit’. The Buddha by definition is not limited ‘by mere logic’ - ‘the dharmas I teach are deep, subtle, difficult to fathom, beyond mere logic, perceivable only by the wise.’ Buddhism employs logic but it’s ultimate aim is beyond logic - not irrational, but supra-rational, which is an important distinction.
On a side note, I saw that the Dalai Lama (and yes different tradition) has made several comments on the urgent importance of action on climate change.
Cool. I've seen some of his work in passing but not read it. Thanks.
Perhaps my eagerness to confirm my own understanding/suspicions on the matter makes me jump to conclusions. Anyway, I'd like to pick your brain regarding how Buddhism is "supra-rational"? What does that even mean by the way?
Modern culture is inextricably bound to empiricism and so what Buddhist philosophy would categorise as the ‘domain of name and form’. Buddhist and other Eastern philosophies are critically aware of the nature of first-person experience. The Buddha’s approach is ‘deconstructive’ in a way that is hard for us moderns to understand. It is insight into the nature of experience and in particular the factor that leads to continued rebirth and so suffering.
I guess that depends on what you mean by ‘exist’. Non-being is not the same as non-existent. For me, ‘seems’ would refer to a phenomenal existence, appearance or being, but ‘seems perhaps’ refers to the contradiction at the heart of the Tao. I think it is misleading to think of the Tao as only existing, without acknowledging the possibility of it not existing, and vice versa, if that makes sense. Remember that we cannot tell anything about the Tao - the best we can do is relate to it as openly as we can manage, and acknowledge the qualities and limitations of that relation.
I think we can sometimes underestimate how difficult it was for ancient writers to describe abstract ideas to an audience whose reality is so grounded in the actual. We’re much more accustomed to talking about potentiality and possibility after thousands of years of refining our language use (and yet we still struggle). To describe the Tao as ‘whirling’ does not mean it is static; and to describe it as ‘emptiness’ does not mean it is actual. Likewise, to describe the Tao as ‘inexhaustible’ does not mean it is a process and to describe it as ‘fathomless’ does not mean it is a concept. The Tao is all of these aspects and more.
The description in this verse reminds me of Kant’s aesthetics, and the progressive transcendence of the four moments: quality beyond object, quantity beyond concept, relation beyond purpose and delight beyond necessity. ‘Whirling’ suggests more than is tangible, ‘emptiness’ more than is observable, ‘inexhaustible’ more than is potentially measurable, and ‘fathomless’ more than is possibly understandable. For me, these correspond to transcending dimensional structures of awareness.
“It seems to be the ancestor of 10,000 beings” - this description takes the Tao beyond the notion of being. He’s included a level of uncertainty here, in the use of ‘ancestor’, and later when he talks about it being a “child of”. Perhaps he doesn’t want to imply a Creator-Being, which also makes sense as he then describes it as “an image of what precedes God”. This reaches beyond even this seemingly ‘absolute’ Being as a named aspect of the Tao, with all of our preconceived or ‘told’ notions of what ‘God’ is.
Are you saying Buddhism is a tradition in mysticism? I must disagree with you on that for, if I'm not mistaken, both Buddhist beliefs and practices have an air of being well-considered, subject to rigorous logical analysis as it were. Its key doctrines are, among many others I suppose, are: 1. ALL life is suffering and 2. ALL things are ephemeral (impermanence). As you can see, the "ALL" plays a significant role, logically speaking, as it becomes the basis of arguments that lead to certain conclusions that become the core principles in Buddhism and any other system of beliefs thus founded for that matter.
To give you an idea of what I'm getting at consider the much-used categorical syllogism about Socrates' mortality:
1. ALL men are mortal.
2. Socrates is a man
Ergo,
3. Socrates is mortal
The above argument gives you a glimpse of what's necessary for logic, at least in categorical logic, viz. universal statements like "All A's are B's" and it's contrary "No A's are B's". Without them, we couldn't formulate any worthwhile argument.
Such "ALL" statements are missing in Taoism and, in fact Taoism takes a different route to reality, shifting the emphasis from "ALL" to "SOME" for it, in its own way, highlights exceptions to generalities - it leaves no stone unturned in trying to let us in on a secret, the secret that "ALL" statements are untenable - they can't be held as true without losing touch with reality.
Consider now a hypothetical categorical syllogism with only "SOME" statements:
Premise 1: Some people are good people.
Premise 2: Some good people are Chinese (homage to Lao Tzu)
Ergo,
Conclusion: ???
No conclusion follows from a syllogism that has only "SOME" statements. In other words, as I alluded to in my previous post, logic is useless with a capital U when it comes to making sense of reality. That's the crux of Taoism.
That out of the way, I would like to ask you how Taoism and Buddhism were brought together in Zen Buddhism? What difficulties existed at the level of core principles and what were the points on which both were on the same page so to speak?
For me, there’s a different nuance. Wu wei, to act without acting, is to effect change without necessarily gaining credit for it. There are thousands of quietly progressive thinkers, leaders and change-makers throughout history who were never credited with being agents for change. There were also many who were criticised for doing nothing or not enough to effect change, yet who possibly had a hand in achieving more for race equality, gay rights, etc than those who earned public recognition as ‘activists’. Wu wei is when effective change cannot be traced back to you as action.
Not-doing is about knowing when to conserve your energy and trust in the natural course or the actions of others as just as effective or more so than your own. It means that achieving is not about being seen to be active. Sometimes effecting change is about recognising your limitations and simply stepping out of the way.
The core principles of Buddhism are not logical syllogisms. They can be expressed as verbal formulations but as the Buddhist saying has it, the finger points at the moon, but don't mistake the finger for moon.
Quoting TheMadFool
That sounds like a term paper! As said, a reputable teacher I know denies the influence, but the Taoist attitudes of spontenaity, naturalness and directness seem to me to have had an influence on Chinese and thence Japanese Buddhism, both in practice and aesthetics. Beyond that, I'd have to brush up on the subject again, it's a very big question. And I don't want to derail the thread any further than I already have.
Thanks, I will take a look at this too. Downloadable here:
https://terebess.hu/english/chuangtzu.html
For me, that is not an option.
I am barely passed the Introduction.
I am more likely to follow a thread started by someone with experience/knowledge who can guide it through rocky waters.
Thanks anyway.
I try to pay attention to the experience that is going on inside me when I think, feel, and act. There is a visual and aural image that represents how that feels to me. I picture a spring bubbling gently up from underground, making a little pool around itself. I can hear the gentle gurgle and, if I want to, I can reach down and touch the cool water. This represents my experience of where motivation, intention come from when things are working right. That non-intention can go directly into action without reflection. That's what I think of as wu wei. Intending without intending leading to acting without acting
Not to be pedantic, but I think it is very important to recognize that the Tao is not objective reality. In a sense, that difference is the difference between eastern and western ways of seeing the world.
Quoting Possibility
Do you think that all affect is desire? I remember reading about people who had damage to the part of the brain where emotions are centered. After the injury, they could no longer intend and act. They were perfectly capable of recognizing what was going, but were unable to do anything. Even action without action requires affect.
Seems like this is the same thing I am talking about.
I'm really happy with the way people are bringing texts in from outside. So far, they've all been relevant and have helped my understanding. I appreciate your regard to the purpose of the thread, but please continue to bring in things you think will help open our eyes.
Quoting Wayfarer
I've been in discussions about whether or not it is appropriate to bring Buddhist ideas, such as "illusion," into discussions about Taoism. I generally say "yes," keeping in mind that while I have spent time with the TTC, I have only flitted around Buddhism. One important thing they have in common is the focus on awareness of internal experience rather than ideas and rational thought, which is how most western philosophy works. That focus makes it possible to find common ground between Taoism and Buddhism .
Gunga galunga... gunga, gunga-lagunga.
Forgive me.
Something Lao Tzu would probably have given his nod of apporval to. I wonder if Buddhism, the whole of it, is kinda like Wittgenstein's ladder:
[quote=Wittgenstein]My propositions serve as elucidations in the following way: anyone who understands me eventually recognizes them as nonsensical, when he has used them—as steps—to climb beyond them. (He must, so to speak, throw away the ladder after he has climbed up it.)
He must transcend these propositions, and then he will see the world aright.[/quote]
You started a thread that has a similar tone: What are you saying?
Perhaps the similarity is superficial and there's nothing to it but...you never know.
I wonder if there could be Buddhist principles which would be in conflict with science. Buddhist thought is so much more sophisticated, if that's the right word, than psychology.
Quoting Tom Storm
I just looked him up. He's an American specializing in Buddhist studies. He's married to a Japanese women who specializes in European History.
I think you brought up something similar in one of your other posts. I'm having trouble keeping track of them all along with what I've responded to. There's a theme in the TTC about the danger of desiring and attaining status and prestige. There's also the theme of action without action. I think those are two separate factors. Wait. Do I really believe that?...Wu wei is not concerned with achievement or recognition, but action without concern for achievement is not necessarily wu wei. Am I nitpicking? ...Maybe.
I appreciate your vigilance at avoiding tangents. So far, I've been really happy with how people are bringing outside sources into the discussion.
Downloaded and sent to my Kindle. Isn't technology wonderful.
Yes it is. If you can use it :smile:
How do you send a download to your kindle ?
Let's see...
Go to Amazon and check in.
Go to Manage your content and devices
Up at the top, click on Preferences
Scroll down and click on Personal Document Settings
There should be different email addresses there for all of your devices.
Compose a new email with the Kindle email addresses. Attach the downloaded file. They'll send you an acknowledgement request. Say yes. Wait a little while. Look for your document under "Docs" on your Kindle.
Good luck.
Well, I think we disagree markedly on our interpretation of wu wei. It seems to me that you see it as acting subconsciously, as if there is an aspect of our thinking, feeling and acting that renders our experience of it as a passive bystander. I’m not convinced that either of us is correct, but if your interpretation is the case, then I wonder what benefit this ‘non-intending’ ‘action without reflection’ serves for the Tao?
I think it's a misconception that acting without prior conscious intention is acting as a "passive bystander." When I write, words pour out of me without conscious control. Sometimes it feels like the words are writing themselves. Writing me. I sometimes feel the same with with other types of behavior. I feel the most there, the most me, when that happens. Do you ever have that kind of experience? It is not uncommon. That is my understanding of "wu wei."
I’m with you there.
Quoting T Clark
No - I do, however, think that desire is essentially affect. FWIW, I disagree with the commonly held understanding that there is a “part of the brain where emotions are centred”. Emotions have more recently been demonstrated as a whole-brain process, but the interoceptive network appears to be the key to producing affect. I should point out that emotion is more than affect. Affect is how the brain translates all information (sensory as well as conceptual) into effort and attention and distributes it across the organism. Emotion is how we conceptualise this information. But I think we’re basically on the same page here.
I don’t think it helps to try and separate these factors. I get that action without concern for achievement is not necessarily wu wei. But I do think that attempting to distill wu wei to a definition or essence is counterproductive. It’s going back to naming particular things, isn’t it?
I guess I sometimes experience something similar when I speak, but not when I write. And I certainly don’t feel ‘most there’ when that happens - I feel like I’m playing catch-up. Writing is when I have the most conscious (even self-conscious) involvement. But I also recognise that my sense of awareness doesn’t operate in a conventional way - I think that I perceive the world differently to most people, so I wouldn’t take my exception as necessarily disproving a rule.
I think perhaps when we get to the verses about the self, we might gain some more clarity on our differences here. I get the sense that you have an essentialist view of the self - that we ‘discover’ the self rather than construct it?
Excellent instructions. It worked, thanks :smile:
It's not difficult to understand at all if you realize that the words are merely pointing at the truth. It is conceptual thought that creates attachment that creates suffering.
Another tradition springing from the study of the Dao (which is closely related to medicine as treatment) was the development of the many "gongs" or training methods that lead to exercises for breath, mind, and energy. Those gongs also relate to "dances" such as the Five Animals Frolics of Hua Tuo. The language of Chinese martial arts also draws from the Tao Te Ching.
The question of whether or not the Tao exists is one I have thought a lot about. To start, in English, being and existence mean the same thing. From the way Lao Tzu uses them, it seems like they do in ancient Chinese too. One way of looking at it is that calling the Tao "non-being" and the 10,000 things "being" is figurative, poetic. I believe that's correct, but in the TTC, two conflicting understandings can be correct at the same time.
For what it's worth, I have never convinced anyone that it makes sense to think that it doesn't exist. I've found that whenever I try to explain how I see it, I have a hard time. Someone asked me "When you're asleep, does the world disappear. My answer - yes of course...but. If I can't conceptualize or describe something, I can't think about it. I can't put it in my world. In that case, I think it makes sense to say it doesn't exist.
Quoting Possibility
Lao Tzu's audience was scholars and bureaucrats. Educated people. Or are you talking about us as his audience?
Quoting Possibility
I'm pretty sure when Lao Tzu says "10,000 beings" he means the same as when he says "10,000 things."
Quoting Possibility
A bit later we'll get to Lao Tzu's creation story. It's ambiguous and contradictory too.
Boy - I'm not happy with how this turned out, but it's the best I can do. Maybe I'll try again later.
Yes. We have plenty of time to work on this. Your insights have been really helpful.
One of the members of my TTC reading group is a Tai Chi instructor. He brought a really helpful perspective to our discussions.
I don't disagree but who are you thinking of by way of comparison?
The traditional cosmology of Buddhism is no more compatible with science than Ptolmaic astronomy. According to it, the center of the Universe is Mount Meru, with four regions spreading below it. It is derived from traditional Indian cosmology. That, I think, is what the Dalai Lama had in mind - he has acknowledged that Mount Meru is mythological, but it's a very real challenge for religious conservatives to accept it. But I don't know think the basic truths of Buddhism are threatened.
Here's a Lopez article, it's paywalled but I think can be read for free as a guest https://tricycle.org/magazine/scientific-buddha/
That makes sense to me.
Reality doesn't exist, it simply is. It is that from which all particular things arise and back into which they fall. That is something that can only be understood by non-action, wu-wei. (Cribbed from various sources.)
I am glad you mention that because I was introduced to these ideas as guides to a practice. It was only after a long time of reading that I became aware of the thinking behind it. It is difficult for me not to see the work as a manual of instruction.
Come on. "Is" is the first person singular of "to be," which is the root of "being," which is a synonym for "existence." No need to go back and forth on this. I've given up trying to make the case that the Tao doesn't exist. For now, anyway.
I am practicing Tai Chi, but at a pretty basic level. Definitely not at the point where I feel a connection between the book and the practice.
Being and existing are not necessarily synonymous, but this is not the thread to hash it out. (example.)
I am not very far along but I have received many tangible benefits.
I did not mean to suggest I had any direct feeling to the book through my practice. It is more like I spent years working in restaurants and have come to view text as recipes.
That doesn't mean I can cook the dish.
That’s the point - they’re effectively nameless. There’s no way to make a case for them, even if I could name them. In my mind I had Abraham Lincoln (and I have to admit here that my knowledge of American history is minimal), whose public position advanced the abolition of slavery and simultaneously hamstrung the potential for social and political equality of black people in the US. While he was emphatically anti-slavery, it’s impossible to view him as supportive of the current cause. Even in his time, many of his actions to preserve the Union were decidedly anti-abolitionist. To my mind, he was conscious of the climate in which he was operating, and that upholding the rights of slave owners in some circumstances but not others would ensure more gradual and less violent progress. He didn’t always get it right - and when he didn’t, one could argue that ‘desire’ (the way slavery affected him personally) seemed to have gotten the best of him.
My reading of Lincoln is that he was more motivated to hold the Union together.
I agree that there are 'anonymous' people who work back of house to effect change, but usually by working very hard, by lobbying, organizing and with relentless energy.
Being a child of the South in the U.S., I can report that a lot of things changed upon an interpersonal basis. The political element was critical to change. It would have all come to naught if the thinking of people did not change.
I have to side with @Wayfarer on the synonymity of being and existing, although my approach is quite different. I think that the structure of language (subject-verb-object) collapses any distinction between them, but that we have the capacity to understand and relate qualitatively to a difference between being as a structure of potentiality and existence as a structure of possibility. I do understand the resistance to this - language is a naming process - it’s why we cannot tell anything directly about the Tao.
@T Clark I think you’re still trying to isolate 10,000 things from the Tao, but I don’t see that as Lao Tzu’s intention. It is the naming that is illusory - being is as much an aspect of the Tao as non-being, regardless of naming. And I don’t think you need to conceptualise and ‘put it [entirely] in your world’ for it to exist. That’s a rationalisation. If you can relate to the Tao from within your world (which we are doing here), and recognise that what you relate to extends beyond your world, then I think it makes sense to say it exists, possibly. Which is as much to say that it possibly doesn’t exist, also.
We need to continually (and humbly) acknowledge that ‘our world’ is limited - especially in relation to the Tao. And this is mainly because we construct it as such from affect. It’s only to the extent that we can hold both possibilities of existence in our mind simultaneously that we can relate to the possibility of the Tao free from affect. We achieve that from a position of the self as simultaneously being and non-being - which cannot be a purely intellectual position, but an integration of our entire being as fundamentally unnecessary. Meditation helps with this integration by getting out of our own way, and humility is required. My own approach is to work towards a more scientific method of integration with an understanding of affect that dissolves the mind-body problem.
Yes, we need both. The question is, why does thinking change?
Fair enough - but if he was more motivated to hold the Union together, surely he would have abandoned all other intentions in order to not fail? The point is that the notion of ‘acting without acting’ makes sense to me in relation to Lincoln, as well as all those working back of house. Lincoln’s intentions and motivations aside, he is historically credited with effecting change. We say that he acted, even though in many situations and for whatever reasons he also chose not to act, even to act against his apparent intentions. Lobbyists are acting without being credited with the outcomes of the change they effect. They’ve foregone the public position of ‘activist’ to effect change without being seen to act - the recognition goes to the activists, politicians and celebrity endorsements, some of whom can be more a hindrance than a help, yet are still necessary to the overall process.
I think the idea of wu wei is to get past the need to be attributed with acting, to forget about establishing and consolidating cause and effect or giving credit where credit is due. When we act without acting, we forego any recognition for certain actions, and instead work collaboratively with the world. Action is then seen as spontaneous, random or a natural movement within a dynamic balance, and there is no sense of individual success, advancement or personal recognition.
Yes, and few politicians were more politically savvy, activist, driven and manipulative than Lincoln. He was no quietist. William Herndon, Lincoln's law partner wrote - “He was always calculating, and always planning ahead..." “His ambition was a little engine that knew no rest.”
I think this idea of acting and not acting is very hard to explain and hard to find in practice. Nevertheless I am sure it can happen.
I really want to!!!! But, yeah. Let's not.
As I said in my post on whether or not the Tao exists, I give up. I don't give up on the idea, but I give up on trying to convince people. For now. I've tried three or four times and just end up tongue-tied. Or keyboard-tied.
As for the Tao being the same as the 10,000 things, if that's what you're saying, the TTC is pretty ambiguous about that. Which is how Lao Tzu does things. Is my family the same as my wife, children, siblings, nieces, step mother, and cousin? I say "no." But in at least one of the verses, I don't remember which verse or which translation, the TTC says the oneness of the Tao and the 10,000 things is the capital "m" Mystery. So I guess I say "yes."
To me, that Mystery is the heart of the Tao Te Ching. If I ignore the distinction between them, I take away half the Mystery. Then I guess it's one hand clapping.
Let's not clog this thread up further, I don't think it is hitting the mark.
I'm more intrigued by T Clark and Wayfarer discussing that which can't be discussed.
As you say, wu wei is spontaneous and natural. But it's not random. There is no thought of avoiding recognition or credit, only of acting without consideration of them. Wu wei is something very simple. You're just doing things without trying to do them.
Actually, I was really interested in what you and @Possibility were discussing. Not the Lincoln part, but the general approach.
Well, I’m not saying they’re identical, but that it’s the naming that isolates each of the 10,000 things from the oneness of the Tao. Your relatives are still family, but an understanding of family is not equal to 10,000 named relatives, but to the qualitative relations between them, inclusive of the structure, of those potential relatives about whom you lack information to name or place within that structure, as well as your comparative relation to excluded non-family (ie. your methodology for exclusion).
I’m only saying that it is seen as spontaneous and natural. I agree that it’s not random to the one acting, but I think it can be viewed as random action by observers unaware of intention (or unwilling to attribute it). It’s more that actions are happening without anyone perceived as intending to do those actions specifically. I think that wu wei is about awareness of, connection to and collaboration with qualitative potentiality in the world beyond intentional acts, as a way of relating to the Tao.
Take a look at the blog post I found. I don't necessarily agree with all the particulars but it makes a crucial distinction between 'existence' and 'reality' (which came out of @T Clark's ruminations on whether the Tao exists).
The '10,000 things' is an allegorical way of referring to what I describe as 'the phenomenal domain'. 'Phenomena' are 'what appears', so in a sense, 'the phenomenal domain' is also 'the sensory domain'. That is summarily described as 'the 10,000 things' where '10,000' simply signifies 'a very large number'.
In Greek philosophy, the distinction was made between phenomena and the realm of forms, or between the One and the Many, or, ultimately, between reality and appearance, where 'phenomena' were 'appearance'. Greek philosophy is not the same as Taoism but again there's a parallel or analogy: 'the nameless' as distinct from the 'phenomenal' corresponds to the 'reality and appearance' distinction. Although in Taoism, there is the non-dual understanding of 'not the same, but also not different', which is the meaning of the line in V1 - 'These two emerge together but differ in name'. (I think this is a pointing out of the limits of logic; Taoist thought is very different to Aristotelian in this respect. Non-dualist philosophies generally reject the idea of an absolute distinction between appearance and reality so tend to subvert the rigid categorisation that you find in Aristotelian logic.)
The crucial point is, Tao is a non-conceptual wisdom. This means that 'the sage', by 'conforming to the Tao' realises his/her identity with it, 'becomes the way' or is a 'true man of the way', and so on. (Again there are parallels with Stoicism, where 'the sage' is 'one who is in conformity with the Logos'[sup]1[/sup].)
Modern people, meanwhile, tend to measure everything against 'the phenomenal domain' and our conceptual maps of it. Of course this is fantastically powerful with respect to navigating that domain - but the 'nameless' is, by definition, not on our maps, so to speak. That's why Taoism and other Eastern disciplines are much more than simply verbal - they're pointing to a different way-of-being (which is why it is not amenable to 'discursive reason' i.e. discussion). Hence the practices of Tai Chi, meditation, and general spiritual culture (sadhana) which aims at a reconfiguration of cognition (called 'metanoia', in Greek philosophy).
I'm hoping this kind of compliments @Possibility's post above, albeit my background is more from comparative religion rather than psychology per se, but in my view it's right on the mark.
--------
1. See paragraph three in this entry.
Thank you. Yes, I think this is a key point for me.
Quoting Wayfarer
I'm not sure I can even find a way to process this, it seems so... ineffable... I can only put it like this: I understand what it's not, but I don't understand what it is not, is...
Non-dualism is one thing... effortless action or not doing is something I need to apprehend in place to understand. I am not asking for a diagram or for someone to step it out, I guess I'm wanting to experience it.
In the case of Lincoln, I think of him as a strategic and super crafty political operator, so I am not sure Wu Wei fits my model of him.
There's no Taoist equivalent to Buddhist Maya (illusion) unless one interprets the innate drive of humans to view reality in terms of fixed generalities, something that figures prominently in the West and in Buddhism, as the most perniciously persistent illusion of all.
I'm not as certain about this as I'd like to be but "...awareness of internal experience..." is a part of Western philosophy as well - think Plato's chariot allegory, Aristotle's golden mean, Socrates' the good life, John Locke on the self & memory, etc. and there probably are "modern" Western thinkers whose philosophies are in the same vein. However, this similarity/convergence in re Taoism, Buddhism, and Western thought is only in the sense of what the subject matter is viz. the mind/the self and these traditions diverge significantly in what particular aspect of the mind/self is of interest, what methodology to use, what framework of knowledge provides the context to name a few.
Western philosophy has a deep concern for logic, an aspect of the mind that's of preeminent importance if we are to, according to it,discover any knowledge worthy of the name. Western philosophers have developed rigorous and exact logical systems (categorical logic, sentential logic, predicate logic, etc.) to the extent that such can be achieved with the aim of perfecting logic so that we can be reasonably confident in the results when it's employed. With logic now more or less under its belt Western philosophy brings it to bear on any and all matters, one of them being the mind/the self. The way this is done is by resorting to a divide and conquer tactic - the mind is broken up into "manageable" chunks like personhood, consciousness, understanding, intelligence to name a few, probably because these facets of the mind are worlds in themselves and need undivided, dedicated attention and study.
In addition, Western philosophy has science as an important collaborator as the latter has constructed a library of empirical knowledge which can't be ignored or, more accurately, must be given due consideration when philosophizing about anything, the mind/the self included. It might seem that science is more of a hindrance than a help in this regard because it seems to invariably place empirical obstacles for philosophers of mind but what we should not forget is that science provides instruments like fMRI, EEG, etc. that can be very useful in probing the brain - the seat of consciousness. Plus, the brain could be "it" you know.
Buddhism and Taoism, on the other hand, lacks these features in their philosophies. Logic is not treated to in-depth analysis and has only a functional role i.e. it's used but not studied. This was probably because logic as it existed back then during the times of the Buddha and Lao Tzu could comfortably handle the ideas of Buddhism and Taoism - there was no felt-need to put logic under the microscope. Science didn't even exist those days and neither its opposition nor its assistance were available to the Buddha and Lao Tzu. Perhaps it didn't/doesn't matter but I recall @Wayfarer saying:
Quoting Wayfarer.
I don't have anything on Taoism along similar lines and that's what's interesting - Taoism has no beef with science and the question of how Taoism is incompatible with science never ever came up.
Last but not the least, returning to your comment, "...awareness of internal experience...", it's quite clear that all three - Western philosophy, Buddhism, and Taoism - have achieved this milestone in human thinking viz. meta-cognition but there are differences as I attempted to, as best as I could, outline in the preceding paragraphs.
It IS ineffable - the first verse in the TTC does away with any illusion that the Tao is otherwise. The challenge is to be content with understanding without needing to make true statements about it, as justification or proof to others that you do understand.
FWIW, I agree that, from a certain perspective of his motivations, Lincoln is not an example of how to act without acting - quite the opposite. He is, however, still an example of the ambiguity or difficulty in providing such an example, as well as the problem that occurs when we do act without acting: activists, politicians and celebrities, all well versed in the art of being seen to be acting, assume credit for the progress achieved by wu wei. I think a significant aspect of ascribing to the practise of wu wei is to be okay with that.
I think @T Clark’s approach to wu wei is a little different to mine - he seems to be looking at it from a position of self-reflection, either during or after the act. When we act, it’s not always consciously intended, but we’re still responsible for those actions and their consequences, intended or not - sometimes more so than when we act in accordance with logical process or rational thought. While I think I follow where he’s coming form, my problem with this approach is that this type of action that bypasses thinking is, in my view, determined by affect, so I’m not convinced this reflects Lao Tzu’s understanding of wu wei.
Effortless action or not-doing is similar but not identical to wu wei, and I think T Clark and I agree more readily here. Not-doing I think corresponds to the phrase ‘let it be’. It’s about trusting the dynamic of existence, instead of trying to wrest control over everything that happens.
The way I see it, a masterful leader realises potential by structuring or facilitating collaborative achievement (wu wei), and also recognises his own limitations while trusting in the capacity of others to act (not-doing); rather than micro-managing his staff or issuing top-down directives for every action, and assuming all the credit.
If the population is reluctant is due to the Prince acts too.
If the population exposes themselves to the death is due to they love too much the life.
The one who doesn’t make anything to live, is more savant than the one who is concerned to live. [/i]
Verse 75.
It's beginning to sound like that Kenny Rogers song, The Gambler
You've got to know when to hold 'em
Know when to fold 'em
Know when to walk away
This is too deliberate but you may know what I'm saying...
Quoting Possibility
What do you mean here - 'more so' in what sense?
Quoting Possibility
Do you mean that things change and you can assume credit for that change by being present (assuming the change is in the service the cause)? Riding the energies of Que Sera, Sera. I've gone from Kenny Rogers to Doris Day... sorry.
:lol: something like that!
Quoting Tom Storm
@T Clark talks in particular about feeling ‘more me’ when he writes freely without conscious deliberation. There is a sense that he is more in touch with his notion of ‘self’ in these moments. From this perspective, it seems that we can detach the ‘self’ from logical processing more easily than from sub-conscious action. It does depend on how one perceives the ‘self’, though.
Quoting Tom Storm
No - although I’m intrigued by this interpretation. Someone well-versed in being seen to act may carefully orchestrate an association between visible action and visible outcome, like the straw that broke the camel’s back. Or a high profile may attract over-inflated attention for an individual meagre effort within the larger momentum of a cause. Wu wei is to put in effort without fanfare, often while others are celebrated as activists and catalysts for change, or an event is seen as a natural or inevitable progression, unrelated to our efforts, or we’re criticised for not doing enough. If we’re not okay with this lack of recognition, wu wei doesn’t happen. If we are okay with it, wu wei is invisible. Therein lies the difficulty.
I found this extremely interesting and intriguingly phrased. Thank you.
This thread is such a joy to read, even though I find it difficult to follow some of the terms and interpretations. There is a wonderful, knowledgeable and questioning interaction.
And never, ever apologise for Doris Day...I think she is wei wei underestimated :smile:
Where did you check ?
Have you read the wiki article on it. All will become clear. Hah !
At least it isn't in Latin :scream:
Wu wei is one of the most important aspects of Taoism. It has been extensively discussed in previous posts in this thread. You should go back and check.
This is a really helpful post.
What helps me is to focus on the experience of being motivated, acting. In an earlier post I described how it feels to me - like a spring bubbling up from underground, the part of me that is hidden from myself. I can see from this discussion this way of seeing things is not helpful to a lot of people, but I think that really is the point of Taoism. It's the wordless experience that's at the heart of everything.
First, as I've noted, I have not spent much time with Buddhism. I think the dichotomy between the illusion and reality in Buddhism is analogous to that between the 10,000 things and the Tao. No need to get into a long discussion about this. I don't have much ammunition to defend this position.
Quoting TheMadFool
Agreed. I discussed this earlier - many people say that Kant's noumenon is analogous to the Tao. I've also read that Schopenhauer read texts from China and was influenced by them. From what I've seen, these references to internal experience are an afterthought, a sidebar, to the real story. In Taoism, they are at the heart.
Quoting TheMadFool
It is my understanding that study of logic was extensive under Confucianism and other earlier philosophies. I don't know how it compares to western logic.
Quoting TheMadFool
This isn't a direct response to what you've written, but I find that the Taoist view of reality is really helpful in my understanding of science. I think the scientific, western view of reality is misleading scientifically. That's a long story.
As we've discussed before, I think this is a misleading interpretation of wu wei. To me, it doesn't have much to do with avoiding fame and fortune, only with not taking those factors into account when you act. This is from Chen's translation of Verse 63 - "The Master never reaches for the great; thus she achieves greatness."
Quoting Possibility
Your perspective on the TTC, in particular the differences between mine and yours, has been really interesting and helpful.
What you've written above sounds to me like we wei is the same as going with your gut feeling. It's not that at all. And, yes, clearly, we are just as responsible for our actions as we are with our more familiar way of acting. Wu wei is not irrational, it's non-rational. Most of the day to day things we do we do without reflection. That doesn't mean those actions are somehow less reliable or that they don't take what we know about a situation into account.
Quoting Possibility
Agreed.
As they say, three chords and the Tao.
Come to think of it, wu wei as "inaction" or "effortless action" is a natural consequent of the Taoist idea of Yin-Yang. All phenomena being an interplay of "two" opposing forces, with the interaction being a process of mutual chaotic cancellation and thus arriving at an ordered equilibrium, the one who has become aware of the Tao comes to the realization that fae must be, in one sense, active as a "force", choosing a side, and also passive as one is just a variable in the equation "spontaneously" balancing itself. One must "move" because one will be either yin or yang, there being no other viable alternative, and yet "stay still" and let nature do its thing. The end result is "always" favorable - order/equilibrium/peace/contentment/harmony.
Just think of the Tao as the Force. Here is Obi Wan Kenobe teaching Luke to use [s]wu wei[/s] the Force.
I think you might be misinterpreting me here - I’m not saying to practise wu wei is to avoid fame and fortune - I’m saying in a modern, Western context ‘greatness’ suggests fame and fortune, but I think this aspect of greatness is more likely to elude those who practise wu wei particularly in a modern, Western setting.
You said yourself that Lao Tzu’s audience were scholars and bureaucrats - I’m not sure that fame and fortune were their idea of achieving ‘greatness’ - at least not in the sense we experience it now, as separate from achievement. I understand greatness here to be more associated with an internal sense of mastery and control, not an external appearance of autonomy and influence such as fame and fortune - especially in a feudal system, where the Master is commonly born into fame and fortune, and need not seek it out.
Quoting T Clark
Well, I don’t see it as gut feeling - that still implies conscious intention, and I think you’ve been clear about its absence here in your interpretation. I agree that non-rational is more accurate than irrational, and I also agree that action without reflection still takes what we know into account. I don’t think I suggested otherwise with what I wrote.
It is, however, action determined by affect - without reflection, there is no opportunity to explore the situation free from affect at any point. This runs counter to earlier verses in the TTC that suggest a clearer understanding of the Tao is achieved when we are free from desire (affect). Why would Lao Tzu encourage action that can never be determined free from desire?
Why would it be 'a process of mutual chaotic cancellation' ?
I agree that a sense of balance might be the outcome of e.g. drawing away from the 'black' but the 'white' doesn't necessarily cancel the black out, or v.v.
It might simply be a merging. Shades of grey, if that doesn't sound too foggy...
Have you ever experienced a moment when you have felt 'at one' with the world. You felt at peace.
I have and wanted to capture that essence in a bottle so I could take it out and sniff later.
To regain a sense of balance. Most of the time, I swing about...if you know what I mean...
I think the same thing occurs when, as Mitchell writes, dancers or sportsmen enter the zone. There is no conscious thought, there is effortless movement. Non-action.
However, to reach that point takes action. Practice. With a view to being the best you can be.
I do see this as being similar to Stoicism, as I think @Wayfarer pointed out.
It's about leading, or trying to lead, a life of harmony. Where we control our emotions to an extent but don't deny them.
Marcus Aurelius comes to mind. He said something like you have power over your mind not external events. Also, your wellbeing is tied up with the quality of your thoughts.
So, there is action and non-action. Knowing when you can, or should act, and knowing when best to let it go... The Serenity Prayer outlines this.
I haven't yet contributed to any interpretation of the verses because I just don't know...
Others do. Or think they do. Or simply want to share their thoughts.
I love this.
Looking forward to reading and understanding more.
I understand it this way too. As per Marcus Aurelius...mentioned above.
There's a comparison here:
https://medium.com/interfaith-now/universal-ideas-in-stoicism-taoism-pantheism-19609c55b38d
Quoting Possibility
I've enjoyed this back and forth. I feel like I have a pretty good understanding of where you are coming from. I'm going to try to practice non-action from now on when it comes to our differences in viewpoint.
Quoting Possibility
There's a lot of stuff that seems contradictory in the TTC.
This is a scene from Billy Elliot, a wonderful movie. It comes after his audition:
"What does it feel like...when you're dancing ?"
You can see their disappointment when he struggles and says "Dunno..'
So glad he found the words to relay that sense of 'What does it feel like...'
"I sort of disappear...I have this fire in my body...like a bird...like electricity.
Yeah, like electricity..."
Phenomenal.
Granted - it’s deliberately so. But I’ve found that when we adjust for affect, that contradiction achieves a dynamic balance, like yin and yang. I don’t see that in this case, hence my skepticism.
I agree that we can achieve a sense of oneness with the Tao through meditative practices that effectively ‘disconnect’ the mental processes from our actions - allowing us to get out of our own way. This usually requires submitting to a teacher and/or enforced process, which is where Western philosophers struggle with trust issues, and Taoism and Zen Buddhism can unfortunately be prone to corruption or misinterpretation.
I have a rather ambitious theory that this forced ‘disconnect’ is unnecessary - that we can strive to understand the mental processes in relation to our actions and vice versa, and develop a scientifically sound methodology that enables us to consciously align our conceptual and sensory realities, rendering oneness with the Tao an effortlessly intellect-driven process. For me, the key to that is affect.
I skipped Verses 5 through 9 and went straight to Verse 10. If you want to discuss any of the verses I skipped, please go ahead. I’m going to try to use both Mitchell’s and Chen’s verses in this discussion. I think Mitchell has oversimplified it by leaving out too much of the original language. Chen, on the other hand, can be pretty obscure. Chen’s text for this verse is italicized. Mitchell’s is bolded.
[i]In bringing your spiritual (ying) and bodily (p'o) souls to embrace the One,
Can (neng) you never depart (li) from it?[/i]
[b]Can you coax your mind from its wandering
and keep to the original oneness?[/b]
I don’t know what the “spiritual and bodily souls” are. This is the only place in either translation where “soul” is used. Does “embracing the One” mean experiencing the Tao? What part of us experiences the Tao? Self? Heart? Mind? Probably not mind.
[i]In concentrating your breath to attain softness,
Can you be like an infant (ying erh)?[/i]
[b]Can you let your body become
supple as a newborn child's?[/b]
I’m not sure what to say about this couplet. Maybe it’s another example of the undertone in the TTC of emptying, releasing, shrinking, weakening, etc. that I mentioned in my thoughts on Verse 3.
[i]In cleansing your mirror (lan) of the dark (hsüan),
Can you make it spotless?[/i]
[b]Can you cleanse your inner vision
until you see nothing but the light?[/b]
Not sure what to say about his either. Not many of the other references to “light” in these versions of the TTC are really relevant. Here’s a stanza from Mitchell’s Verse 52:
"Seeing into darkness is clarity.
Knowing how to yield is strength.
Use your own light
and return to the source of light.
This is called practicing eternity."
“Source of light” seems to mean the Tao, but darkness is sometimes used to describe it too. Maybe it’s as simple as “seeing the light,” i.e. understanding. Maybe, as Mitchell quotes in Verse 52, it’s more about clarity than light. Seeing things as they really are.
I[i]n opening and closing heaven's gate (t'ien men),
Can you be the female (tz'u)?[/i]
[b]Can you love people and lead them
without imposing your will?[/b]
These two translations are really different. I checked to make sure I didn’t get them mixed up. I’ll talk about the Chen version. It matches other translations better than Mitchell. The subject of female and male comes up often in the TTC and other sources. It’s not clear if female and male are supposed to be the same thing as yin and yang. Here is a discussion of that line from a well-known commentary written by Heshang Gong about 300 years after the TTC -
“Those who govern the body should be like a female (bird on
its nest eggs) – peaceful, still, soft, and gentle. Those who
govern the nation should adapt to changes and unite (with
the people), rather than sing songs (of conquest and try to
appear dominant like the male bird).”
[i]In being enlightened (ming) and comprehending all,
Can you do it without knowledge?[/i]
[b]Can you step back from you own mind
and thus understand all things?[/b]
This is a theme that comes up a few times in the TTC. This is from Chen, Verse 3:
"Always he keeps his people in no-knowledge and no-desire,
Such that he who knows dares not act.
Act by no-action (wu-wei),
Then, nothing is not in order."
Hey, wait a minute, I’ve been saying that no-action and wu wei are different!! Anyway, knowledge and desire go together.
[i]In loving the people and governing the state,
Can you practice non-action?[/i]
[b]Can you deal with the most vital matters
by letting events take their course?[/b]
Again with the non-action. We’ve already said a lot about this.
[i]To give birth, to nurture,
To give birth yet not to claim possession (yu),
To act (wei) yet not to hold on to,
To grow (chang) yet not to lord over (tsai),
This is called the dark virtue (yüan te).[/i]
[b]Giving birth and nourishing,
having without possessing,
acting with no expectations,
leading and not trying to control:
this is the supreme virtue.[/b]
To give birth and nurture – To create? To act? To lead? To support?
To give birth yet not claim possession – Not taking credit. Not grasping for acclaim.
To act yet not to hold on to – Act and then go on without looking back. No regrets. No pride.
To grow yet not to lord over – To grow as in to grow a plant? Don’t overwater?
This is called the dark virtue – “Dark” gets used a lot. Sometimes it’s good. Sometimes not. This is worth looking in to more. Here is a stanza from an alternate translation of Verse 1 by Chen:
"By the Everlasting (ch'ang) Being (yu),
We desire (yü) to observe the manifestations (chiao).
These two issue from the same origin,
Though named differently.
Both are called the dark (hsüan).
Dark and even darker,
The door to all hidden mysteries (miao)."
As I've said, you and I see things differently. I'm satisfied of three things 1) I understand your viewpoint better than I did at the start. 2) Although we're think differently about this, we can still have useful discussions. You're really articulate about your views. 3) There's no need to, and it's unlikely we'd be able to, get to a point where we fully agree.
I recognize the emphasis on a way of being that is beyond "discursive reason" is central to what is happening in this book. But the work also provided the framework for empirical investigations and attempts to understand health and disease as processes. The logic of rejuvenation is anchored to a view of why anything is alive. What is experienced by an individual organism is the result of a condition happening to all organisms. It is exquisitely "materialistic" in many ways.
'Original oneness' - samadhi, trance states whereby the sense of separateness is dissolved in union with the Tao. Parallels with other 'traditions of union'.
Quoting T Clark
There's a famous Buddhist text, called the Platform Sutra of the Sixth Patriach of Zen, Hui Neng, a legendary figure. The whole story of his ascent to the role of Patriach pivots around a poem he writes on the temple wall about exactly this point. It's probably too much of a digression to re-tell the whole story here, but note that it is one of those subjects on which Taoism and Ch'an (Zen) Buddhism tend to converge in some ways.
'Darkness' is a symbol of the 'divine darkness', the unknowable-yet-known nature of the ground of being. There's a school or movement called Dark Zen which is also reminiscent of these verses.
Quoting Valentinus
I think that's you looking at it through the prism of modernity. As I said to T Clark, in practice Taoism is allied with nostrums, potions, and all manner of magic spells, it's about as far from materialism as you could imagine.
Quoting TheMadFool
By ‘science’ I mean ‘modern science’, commencing with Newton. Traditional Taoism had no contact with modern science, obviously. Buddhism is different because it is more a global religion (‘Hinduism stripped for export’, in Alan Watts’ phrase.) ‘Science’ in the traditional meaning of ‘scientia’ is less sharply defined, and less inimical to traditionalism.
I was looking at the attempts to understand experience that was framed in the language established here. It is not about my point of view as a thinker but the body of work that was done from this head water.
I went and looked. Is this the verse you are talking about?
[i]Bodhi originally has no tree,
The mirror(-like mind) has no stand.
Buddha-nature (emptiness/oneness) is always clean and pure;
Where is there room for dust (to alight)?[/i]
Alternate version:
[i]The mind is the Bodhi tree,
The body is the mirror stand.
The mirror is originally clean and pure;
Where can it be stained by dust?[/i]
I think this gives some insight into the meaning of the mirror in the Chen translation. The Bodhi Tree is the tree Buddha sat under. A fig dropped down on him and he discovered gravity... I mean enlightenment.
Quoting Wayfarer
"Darkness" seems to have different meanings in different verses. Sometimes it has a negative connotation. I've been going through various verses and picking out examples. If it turns out interesting, I'll put it in a post.
:up: :ok:
Yes, that's it. The point of it is that it was composed as a rejoinder to an earlier verse, penned by the presumed 'dharma heir' (i.e. presumed next abbott), Shenxui, who wrote:
Which is a very pious and rather stereotypical verse in praise of purity.
So Huineng's rejoinder is much more radical - 'where can the dust alight?' It is very much in conformity with the Diamond Sutra, which is the sutra that Huineng had heard prior to setting out for the monastery. And that too is a very baffling and perplexing text (as well as being famous as the world's oldest printed book, having been mass-produced by woodblock edition in around 868 A.D. [sup]1[/sup] )
Commentators say that Huineng's verse shouldn't be seen as a refutation of Shenxui but a dialectical counterpoint, so to speak - the practice of purification is necessary, but the true foundation is the reality that there is nothing to purify. It's one of the most opaque and difficult issues in all Eastern studies, however, so don't think it can be easily understood.
There's a good encyclopedia entry on Huineng here.
I'm not going to go any further with this right now, but the similarity between the TTC, at least the Chen version, and the verses was interesting.
This is an interesting verse. I love how Chinese characters refer more clearly to ideas than to things. The interaction between ying (echo, answer, response) and pò (broken, expose the truth of) as internal aspects of our relation to the Tao, to me reflects Feldman Barrett’s proposed interaction between a constructed conceptual (‘spiritual’) reality and a constructed interocepted (‘bodily’) reality in an ongoing dialectic that manifests and refines consciousness. This is my initial reading, anyway, FWIW.
Quoting T Clark
I’m going to try a different tack with this verse, mainly because so little of these translations make any clear sense to me. I’m not all that familiar with Chinese, but I’ve seen a number of side-by-side translations of verse 11 that don’t phrase these couplets as questions at all. Neng may be interpreted as ‘can’, but one thing I do know about Chinese grammar is that it always puts the thing the sentence is about first. Neng also refers to the idea of energy or capability, and its title is also written as neng wei, which can be translated as the capability of potential. The classical final particle hu at the end of each couplet here also implies a question, but it can be translated simply as an expression of doubt or astonishment.
So, the first couplet can be understood to question the mind-body problem, and our desire to separate these aspects from each other, when they are one in the Tao. Neng wu li hu can be translated simply as ‘inseparable’, with a question mark.
I think the second couplet talks about focusing qi on an appearance of yielding or flexibility, doubting whether it really does make us weak and helpless, like a baby.
The third couplet talks about cleansing ourselves from - excluding and refusing to look at - the unknown, doubting whether this really does render us without defect.
And the fourth couplet talks about caring for the nation and governing its people, and doubts whether this requires a capacity to act.
Quoting T Clark
To sustain, but not treat as livestock (ie. expendable commodities).
Quoting T Clark
Xuan is translated as ‘black, mysterious’ - the unknown - the good or bad of which constitutes the influence of affect. ‘This is named the “unknown” of the Tao’. These are answers we do not have any certainty of, and cannot be proven definitively. The verse in its entirety seems to outline the uncertainty in our relation to the Tao.
In D.C. Lau's version of verse 10, he makes a reference to how the Heavenly Gate is described in Zhuangzi that may interest the ongoing discussion of being and non-being:
This is really helpful. Thanks.
The way I set up my post for Verse 10, but cutting it all up in pieces, made it so I never looked at the whole verse as one piece. So, anyway, here's the whole verse, Chen version:
[i]In bringing your spiritual (ying) and bodily (p'o) souls to embrace the One,
Can (neng) you never depart (li) from it?
In concentrating your breath to attain softness,
Can you be like an infant (ying erh)?
In cleansing your mirror (lan) of the dark (hsüan),
Can you make it spotless?
In opening and closing heaven's gate (t'ien men),
Can you be the female (tz'u)?
In being enlightened (ming) and comprehending all,
Can you do it without knowledge?
In loving the people and governing the state,
Can you practice non-action?
To give birth, to nurture,
To give birth yet not to claim possession (yu),
To act (wei) yet not to hold on to,
To grow (chang) yet not to lord over (tsai),
This is called the dark virtue (yüan te).[/i]
I see this differently than you do. To me this looks like a list of requirements for being a sage. Almost a checklist:
Embrace the Tao - check
Clear your mind - check
Be gentle and accepting - check
Abandon concepts - check
Non-action - check
No desire - check
I think the use of questions is just a literary device. Instead of "can you" it could just have easily have been "if you can." If you did that, the pattern would be a lot like "If" by Rudyard Kipling:
[i]If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with Kings—nor lose the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds’ worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it,
And—which is more—you’ll be a Man, my son![/i]
And - which is more - you'll be a Sage, my son.
Appreciate seeing the whole Verse or Chapter as it is called in the Philip Ivanhoe translation.
The final part of Chapter Ten:
Comprehending all within the four directions, can you reside in nonaction?
To produce them !
To nurture them !
To produce without possessing;
To act with no expectation of reward;
To lead without lording over;
Such is Enigmatic Virtue !
Quoting T Clark
No sexism please, we're talking Virtue :smile:
No matter its roots, it's a nonsexual quality...
I still get lost in the terminology you use. So, ok, ok, I just downloaded Feldman Barrett's book. I can't promise I'll read it all in time to help with this discussion.
From now on I'll give the entire verse at the beginning of my post. Do you like the Ivanhoe translation particularly?
Thanks. I prefer seeing the whole first before breakdown.
I've just found the Ivanhoe translation and turned to the Verse being discussed.
Too early to say...
But did like the neatness of:
'To produce without possessing;
To act with no expectation of reward;'
I think this is a Western interpretation of the text. We find in the text what we’re looking for, I suppose. But I’m intrigued by the interpretations here that attribute relations of affect, value and morality where it doesn’t seem to exist in the traditional Chinese concepts themselves.
I found this site, which presents three different translations of the text, and also presents the original Chinese, with a literal character-by-character translation in highlighting them individually. It’s eye opening. Written Chinese is a such a logically structured language. It has five basic grammar rules that are satisfyingly rational and rigid, like BIMDAS in mathematics. And the concepts are structured as atemporal thoughts, progressing from attended instances of experience towards a relation to the Tao.
Quoting T Clark
I’ll take a pedantic look at this couplet in particular, because this notion of wu wei is so central to the TTC. The first four characters are ‘to love/care for’ followed by ‘the nation/state’, and ‘to govern’ followed by ‘the people/citizens’. This describes the topic at hand. It’s followed by ‘the ability/energy/capacity’, ‘also/yet’, and then ‘not’, followed by wei - which is not really ‘action’ but ‘to act in that capacity’, and has a distinctly passive voice. As mentioned before, the couplet ends with hu, which denotes questioning, doubt or astonishment at the overall thought.
The liberties taken with altering the structure of this thought in translation are a fascinating look at how affect impacts on thought. To work backwards from the Tao, our affect tends to evaluate doubt or uncertainty as unpleasant, and so we straight away dissociate ourselves from this relation to the Tao by framing it as a question. The next aspect, that of acting in a certain capacity, is an exclusion by this particular thought as modified by the negation that precedes it. The conjunction then combines this focus - a question of not acting in a particular capacity - to the notion of ability or capability itself. This combination then interacts with the notion of the people (modified by the notion of governing) of the state (modified by the notion of loving or caring for).
So it reads more like this:
In caring for the state and governing its people, understanding our capabilities without acting in that capacity is uncertain - such is our relation to the Tao. How does this affect us? Does it hold us back from making decisions? Do we focus on attributing any apparent capability only to ourselves? Are we capable of governing without certainty in this regard?
Well, yes, of course my understanding is a "Western interpretation." As is yours.
Quoting Possibility
My understanding of the TTC and yours are so different, I don't think they have much in common. Maybe when I read the book you referenced I'll understand.
Your interpretation touches on a quality that greatly interests me. A method is being promoted that often sounds like a rejection of all method. But it is not that. The sage is somehow the good mother and the baby being cared for. The difficulty of making out the ways of those in the Way suggests that the demand to be simple is not simple to carry out.
Another question is how the competing method relates to the one that is being rejected. The bad method is displayed as the accumulation of its deleterious outcomes. It might come as a matter of surprise to some of them that they have been identified as adherents to a "yes -action." philosophy. In that sense, calling for Wu Wei is clearly an act that is not interested in hiding the virtue of their point of view.
In contradiction to the way I was just representing the Sage as playing a part in nurture, I think it is important to look at verse 5 where it seems nothing could be further from such an element:
Are the opposing perspectives of what is beneficial to people and a harsh view of where it comes from something that is resolved into a more encompassing perspective?
The verse reminds me of line 5:13 of the Analects:
Can Lao Tzu's sage be "embodied"?
They make to the skilful people do not to act. Because there is nothing that it cannot be resolved with the practice of no act [/i]
Verse III
Thoughts: sadly this is one of the most common tools or practices used by governors. When the people is ignorant it is easier to convince them with fake news. If it were possible probably they would remove all pillars of philosophy and thinking. Sometimes it looks like the State and government are enemies of knowledge. This is why it is impossible to find happiness.
I'm not sure what "method" means in this context. Could you expand a bit. What is Lao Tzu's method?
Cook Ding Cuts Up an Ox
https://navigatingthezhuangzi.weebly.com/cook-ding-cuts-up-an-ox.html
It shows effortless action in rhythm with the way things are.
With skilled precision, not looking or hacking, the ox is cut according to its joints; its natural divisions.
Spirit moves to take the place of perception and understanding. It is spontaneous action.
His actions are effortless because there is no resistance when one moves with the ways things are rather than against them.
But just as in the case of dancers and sportsmen, this wasn't always the case.
It took him years of learning and continual practice.
That is, conscious action before he could move beyond skill. Doing then not-doing.
The story show that difficulties can still be encountered along the way.
There can be resistance.
Then he has to assess, observe and be careful.
Being attentive, moving the knife slowly to achieve a satisfactory result.
This is deliberate action.
I went through various documents looking at how the words "dark" or "darkness were used." I don't have any point to make. I did it to satisfy my curiosity.
From Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Metaphysics in Chinese Philosophy
The Han dynasty collapsed in 220 CE, leading to a long period of fragmentation, instability, and uncertainty. The dominant philosophical movement is known as Xuanxue ??, “Profound Learning.” The term xuan means dark, obscure, or profound, but it also has a sense of what precedes any division, as it is used in the first chapter of the Laozi.
From Heshang Gong commentary on Verse 21
[i]The Dao is obscure, dark, and without form. Within it is the
essence of reality. Spirit and radiance join together in one
thin line. Yin and yang blend together.[/i]
From Heshang Gong commentary on Verse 28
[i]White is a metaphor for intense brightness. Black is a
metaphor for quiet stillness. Though someone may know
that they are full of light, they should understand the white
while holding onto quiet stillness, close themselves within
a darkness which cannot be seen, and be well aligned (with
Dao). This enables them to be a standard and guide for the
world. Then Virtue will always be with them.[/i]
From Verse 14 – Aldiss and Lombardo translation
The ancients who followed Tao: Dark, wondrous, profound, penetrating. Deep beyond knowing.
From Verse 41 – Aldiss and Lombardo translation
The bright road seems dark, The road forward seems to retreat, The level road seems rough.
From Wikipedia “Xuanxue.”
The name first compounds xuan (?) "black,dark; mysterious, profound, abstruse, arcane." It occurs in the first chapter of the Tao Te Ching ("?????????"). The word xuan literally depicts a shade of deep, mystical, dark red. Tao Te Ching speaks of the Tao as Xuan, more specifically underpinning the depth, utter impenetrability, and the profound mystery of the Tao.
From Ursula K. LeGuin’s commentary on Verse 42
Lao Tzu keeps reminding us to value yin, the soft, the dark, the weak, earth, water, the Mother, the Valley.
From Ellen Marie Chen’s translation of Verse 6
[i]The Valley Spirit (ku shen) is deathless,
It is called the dark Mare (hsüan p'in).
The door of the dark Mare,
Is called the root of heaven and earth.[/i]
From Ellen Marie Chen’s translation of Verse 10
In cleansing your mirror (lan) of the dark (hsüan),
Can you make it spotless?....
…To grow (chang) yet not to lord over (tsai),
This is called the dark virtue (yüan te).
From Ellen Marie Chen’s translation of Verse 15
[i]On the decline of the great Tao,
There are humanity (jen) and righteousness (i)….
…When a nation is in darkness (hun) and disorder (lüan),
There are loyal ministers.[/i]
From Ellen Marie Chen’s translation of Verse 20
[i]Worldly people (su jen) are luminous (chao);
I alone (tu) am dark (hun).
Worldly people are clear-sighted (ch'a);
I alone (tu) am dull (men),[/i]
From Ellen Marie Chen’s translation of Verse 57
[i]In an empire with many prohibitions,
People are often poor;
When people have many sharp weapons,
The state is in great darkness (tzu hun);[/i]
But it also is made clear that the correction cannot happen by simply replacing one table of values with another. While bad agendas lead to bad results, the problem is also caused by how we use agendas. While the logic of causes can explain the first problem, addressing the second is not as straightforward. It certainly is not as simple as finding an opposing value to promote as a replacement.
So there is an asymmetry between the two problems. Finding a way to proceed with a correction is a method that always keeps the asymmetry in view.
I don't understand. What is Lao Tzu's method?
Before going further along my line of thought, I would like to ask if it seems like complete blather or is there a point of departure where it made some sense and then stopped making sense.
If it is the former, I don't want to clog the thread with attempts to make the perspective more germane.
There are plenty of other elements to consider without it.
I don't know what "method" means in this context. What is a philosophical method? I guess it's how the philosopher goes about achieving his purpose. The actions he takes, or, the kinds of actions he takes. What is Lao Tzu's purpose? What actions did he take?
If this isn't a useful path, we don't have to go any further.
Quoting T Clark
I think it was a philosophical problem tied to an ethical crisis. There was a prevailing set of categories and standards and they were found to be deficient to the point that they had to be opposed, in the old fashioned sense that something needs to be stopped. But this alternative is not presented as an antithesis in the Hegelian sense of history. There is something seriously not continuous in Lao Tzu calling for a frame of reference that does not start from where everyone else started. The view doesn't reject traditional values but it changes how to understand why they are viable.
[i]Thirty spokes share one hub to make a wheel.
Through its non-being (wu),
There is (yu) the use (yung) of the carriage.
Mold clay into a vessel (ch'i).
Through its non-being (wu),
There is (yu) the use (yung) of the vessel.
Cut out doors and windows to make a house.
Through its non-being (wu),
There is (yu) the use (yung) of the house.
Therefore in the being (yu-chih) of a thing,
There lies the benefit (li).
In the non-being (wu-chih) of a thing,
There lies its use (yun).[/i]
Derek Lin’s commentary on Verse 11
[i]In a wheel, thirty spokes come together in one hub. The hole in the center of the hub - the place where it is empty - is what makes the wheel useful as part of a vehicle.
When we mix clay to create a container, we notice that it is the empty space in the center of the container that give it the usefulness of holding things.
When we cut open a wall to make space for windows and doors, we notice that it is these openings that make the room truly useful to us. If such openings did not exist, we would have no way of accessing the room!
Therefore, we can see how we create solid objects to provide us with benefits and convenience, but it is actually the emptiness formed by, or embedded in such objects that really provide them with functionality and usefulness.[/i]
I’ve never liked this verse. It doesn’t make sense to me. It seems like it’s changing the meaning of being and non-being. In the wheel, pot, or house, the non-being is created by being. In other uses we’ve seen, non-being creates being. Is this just a metaphor? A pun on “emptiness”. Saying the emptiness of a pot is similar to the emptiness of the Tao. The Tao is not nothing, it is no-thing.
I don’t get the being = benefit, non-being = use thing. Again – I would have thought that we use a hammer, one of the 10,000 things, part of being. How do we use the Tao?
Just a quick response:
To help me understand this, I replace 'being' with 'substance'.
Seems to be about how we function or what our purpose is in life.
What do we need to enable us to progress through life. Some might say the Tao or similar.
Our body as a container consisting of mere flesh and bones ( substance ) doesn't cut it.
To work, to be all we can be, we need our brain with mind, or spirit (non-substance).
To perceive, to think, to connect to others. To maintain the bodily functions together with the mind.
Some might be able to do this naturally, others need guidance. We are complex.
What does a hammer basically need to enable it to function or realise its purpose ?
'A hammer is a tool consisting of a weighted "head" fixed to a long handle that is swung to deliver an impact to a small area of an object.'
So, pretty much, simple substance.
Re the 'benefit' aspect.
From Mitchell - ' we work with being, but non-being is what we use'
From Ivanhoe - ' And so, what is there is the basis for profit; What is not there is the basis for use.
What is there is the basic material. It is kinda good to have. It is of benefit.
I hope to be given feedback to this and my earlier post re the wei wu wei story.
The original symbol for zero, 0, came from the hole in the middle seat of a dhow, where the mast was put for the sail. It was by virtue of that hole, where nothing is, that the mast can be put, which makes it possible for the dhow to sail. That is very similar to what the verse you quoted says. I kinda get it intuitively.
Quoting Amity
Yes - the model you're taught when you study adult learning is that learners progress through four stages - unconscious incompetence (I don't know what that is') conscious incompetence ('I don't know how to do that'), conscious competence ('I can do that if I really try') unconscious competence - mastery or 'second nature' i.e. something that can be perfomed effortlessly. (Like watching a great pianist - they make it look easy.) Wu-wei is a form of mastery or 'second nature'.
that comparison site you linked is interesting. I copied this from the opening stanza, Goddard translation:
Not unlike the description of the philosopher-kings of Plato - disinterested rulers, having subdued their animal spirits.
This squares with a paradox of nothing I discovered about 6 months ago.
Definition: Nothing is not anything.
Question: Is nothing "something" that we can define?
Answer: Since nothing can't be "something" and if nothing is "something" that can be defined, then nothing is "something". Ergo, nothing can't be defined.
The paradox: the existing definition of nothing is self-contradictory.
Conclusion: Nothing is...(unnameable) the eternal Tao.
It was just another way to look at it. That’s all. There are so many different translations of the TTC into English because of the relational and structural differences between alphanumerical and pictorial languages.
In pictorial languages, like Chinese characters, each stroke and each character has a flow or pattern of qualities, while the language system itself has a rigid, logical structure. In alphanumeric languages, like English, each stroke, each character and even each language employing those characters assumes its own logical structure, and each language system allows for flow or qualities only within OR between each structure. They’re two very different ways of thinking about the world.
But I won’t explore this approach further - there doesn’t seem to be much interest in it here...
There are interpreters of the TTC who see it as an authoritarian, Machiavellian handbook for rulers. Most people disagree with that, and I think I agree with them. China in 400 BCE was a very different place than here. The government Lao Tzu describes is paternalistic and definitely not democratic. It seems fruitless to apply today's standards.
Quoting Possibility
I have no problem with you discussing it here. It's just that the terminology is so unfamiliar, I don't know how to use it. I do plan to read the book you referenced. It's the kind of thing I'm interested in anyway.
I think I get it too. It's just that the definitions of being and non-being used in this context don't seem the same as other verses. The ones used in this verse seem like weak tea, as the saying goes, when compared with those in Verse 1, for example. This is from one of Chen's alternate translation of that verse.
[i]Therefore, by the Everlasting (ch'ang) Non-Being (wu),
We desire (yü) to observe (kuan) its hidden mystery (miao);
By the Everlasting (ch'ang) Being (yu),
We desire (yü) to observe the manifestations (chiao).[/i]
For me, that is one of the most powerful statements in the TTC.
I often think about this question - Can you get something from nothing. Answer - Sure, QM tells us that particles arise in the quantum vacuum continually. Response - Well, the vacuum state isn't really nothing.
I'm quitting the discussion until I can think of something substantive but I'll leave you with a joke:
What's greater than god, more evil than the devil, the poor have it and the rich want it?
Answer: nothing!
I'm ok with that here, but just to be clear, I don't think the 10,000 things have to be substantial, i.e. material. I think love is one of the 10,000 things.
Quoting Amity
I'm ok with this too, but I don't see what it has to do with Verse 11.
Quoting Amity
I think you've seen that I'm pretty good at responding to others' posts. Generally, I try always to respond to posts that are addressed to me. I can't say I'm perfect, but I try. I respond to other posts if I think I have something worthwhile to contribute.
I have read the verse from the Chuang Tzu you quoted. I think it is a good example of wu wei.
My plan is to continue with this thread whether or not people respond. I'm having a good time and it's really helping me clarify my understanding. We'll see how long I can keep it going. We're just getting started. The responses you've made so far are worthwhile. Drop in and sound off any time.
Quoting T Clark
Wu refers to the idea of lack - its meaning hasn’t changed, only the level of relation to these ideas. Here, rather than a figurative or active lack of being, it is a tangible lack in relation to certain objects and their potential substance. Wu is a vital aspect of the Tao - what we ignore, isolate or exclude in our relation to the world, what is missing or removed, is an integral part of how we relate to the world on all levels of awareness. In Western thinking, we conceal this aspect at each level and focus only on the tangible substance, as if this lack doesn’t matter. But lack exists as a necessary aspect of even the most concrete or fully-formed reality.
I think Lao Tzu is making a distinction here between substantial value (benefit) and immaterial potentiality. Value is the capacity or ability that exists in what is; potentiality is the capacity or ability that exists in what is not - but can be, was before, or might have been. It is this relational structure to the world, between substance and its lack, that all action, dynamic, movement, change, creation and destruction derives from.
Quoting Amity
Not really - a hammer can’t swing itself. It’s a vital piece of what makes the hammer a hammer that is missing from its existence. This aspect of its definition - ‘that is swung to deliver an impact’ - refers to wu: the lack that pertains to the hammer’s potentiality.
I agree with what you're saying, but the type of non-being you describe seems different to me than the non-being described elsewhere in the TTC. In those cases, such as Chen's alternative translation of Verse 1 which I showed in a previous post to Wayfarer, non-being is a property of the Tao. That non-being is the source of everything. The seem like entirely different things. Entirely different not-things.
Quoting Possibility
I don't understand the distinction you're making. Let's break this down. What is the use of a pitcher? I can use it to hold water because of it's enclosed emptiness, its non-being. Ok. Then what is the value of the pitcher? The benefit? How does it make my life better?
So, is it a have my cake and eat it thing?
I read Possibility's remark to mean the benefit is the direct utility of the result; The pitcher holds water. The wu permits it to be filled and emptied.
Quoting T Clark
Verse 11 makes the distinction between benefit and use. The benefit comes from being. The use comes from non-being. I don't understand it. That's what I'm trying to figure out.
The pitcher must exist for it to be a benefit to one. The utility that makes it beneficial is possible through the non-being. The wheel makes carriages exist and move. The non-being involved in the wheel is what makes the being of the carriage possible.
I don't like that interpretation much, but I don't hate it. You may be on to something. I'll think about it some more.
Thanks.
Thanks for this. The comments I wrote after linking to the Cook Ding story took me some effort and time to compose. I should have made it clear that although it might be seen as a repetition of what I had posted before re dancers, it was more than that.
It included the idea of 'resistance'. Where there is no resistance, action is effortless. Where we meet resistance, or obstacles on the path, then action is deliberate. A different process is required before we can attain our objective. I mentioned keen observation, careful assessment and slow movement.
I think the quality of care is important.
As a learner at the 'conscious incompetence' stage, I need to understand the fundamentals before progress can be made. I appreciate any feedback, even - perhaps especially - if I get it wrong.
You learn by your mistakes. This thread has been helpful in so many ways.
Quoting T Clark
Yes. I think I was wrong to use the word 'substance' as a replacement for 'being'. The term 'substance' can be misleading. It was just how I tried to get my head around it...
I agree that the things we encounter don't necessarily have to be physical. Again, the term 'being' can be misleading too.
Quoting T Clark
OK. The part you took out was from my lengthier post in response to your:
Quoting T Clark
As a beginner, I should have realised that in dealing with my own limited understanding, I should steer clear of attempts to help.
Quoting T Clark
Yes.
Quoting T Clark
Quoting T Clark
I not only quoted the story, I made additional comments see my post to @Wayfarer.
Thanks for your contribution :smile:
Yes. I had thought of the agency required to swing the hammer. Also, the space in which it moves and the energy used. I added the word' basically' in recognition of the fact that more was required.
However, I couldn't see how this was the missing 'wu'. I am grateful for your clear explanation.
It makes sense now. 'The lack that pertains to the hammer's potentiality'.
So, that's another step along the way in understanding. Way to go :cool:
There is interest, indeed fascination, on my part. The comparison site you linked to was a great find.
I should have given feedback at the time, sorry, but I needed to understand the fundamentals first.
I used it to click on the Chinese characters and compare the three translations and that of Ivanhoe, Chapter ( Verse) 16.
What struck me was the use of the word 'evil' in the 3.
In Ivanhoe, it is 'wantonly produce misfortune'.
I eventually found the relevant Chinese characters which matched up.
They don't seem to talk of 'evil' as such but of 'terrible, fearful..'
I was reminded of Searle's Chinese Room argument. The characters on their own, as per the website anyway, present as a simple code. There is no meaning. They have to mean more than the 'click tip' suggests otherwise how could translators even begin to interpret.
It is not clear to me how helpful it is to click on the symbols to reach an understanding. Even someone whose first language is Chinese won't understand the text simply by knowing the language. Just as a native German speaker will not understand Hegel.
Anyway, as someone who loves languages and is intrigued by the various translations and interpretations, I have been following your explorations and approach with interest.
Sorry, I didn't give that feedback before. I am simply overwhelmed by all of this.
Looking forward to more discussion.
This articulate and clear explanation makes complete sense to me.
I might just have to print it out for later reference :cool:
It isn’t ‘non-being’ that Lao Tzu is referring to, though: it’s lack. What is translated as ‘non-being’ relates to this idea of lack, and so does this lack of substance described in verse 11. It is the relation between this idea of lack and the idea of existence that is the source of everything - that is the Tao.
Quoting T Clark
You’re referring to different aspects of the pitcher’s potentiality, but all of these except the second one are uses: they can only be realised by action that has not yet happened, but more importantly cannot be realised in the substance of the pitcher itself - only in its lack.
The value of the pitcher is in our relation to its substance, the use of the pitcher is in our relation to its lack. Interestingly, if you put it on a shelf, would any value it has be attributed to your house, or to the pitcher?
e pluribus unum
/e? ?pl??r?b?s ?ju?n?m/
noun
out of many, one (the motto of the US).
The meaning of the characters is in our relation to their context. The idea is to always be aware of our own fluid position in relation to the text, within an overall logical structure of the language. English, on the other hand, assumes that our position in relation to the language is fixed, even though we know that’s not true.
Chinese characters don’t seem to presume a particular affect, only a particular quality. There is no sense of whether it is pleasant/unpleasant, nor any sense of energy or arousal inherent in the meaning of the characters. They simply present the idea in a particular logical relation to other ideas, and the reader then brings their own subjective relation (including affect) to that structure.
To my reading, being sensitive to resistance leads to perception of what one is working upon. Some element of that is moving with careful attention:
'However, whenever I come to a complicated place, I size up the difficulties, tell myself to watch out and be careful, keep my eyes on what I'm doing, work very slowly, and move the knife with the greatest subtlety, until — flop! the whole thing comes apart like a clod of earth crumbling to the ground."
This being able to perceive seems to be related to a number of places in Dao De Jing where the follower of the way is described as "hesitant." This language is used in verse 15, for instance.
Another element of the butcher story that pertains to the being nonbeing distinction discussed here is that joints are the empty or undetermined parts of an animal. The butchers work is effortless because he never tries to cut in any other place.
I don't understand this. Where is the assumption that our position is fixed ?
Quoting Possibility
Not sure if I understand this either. However, I do note their sparse code-like nature compared to the longer and extravagant English translations.
Where does the logical relationship lie in between the characters or ideas. In the space ?
I don't see the logical aspect here.
Thanks for pointing that out. I will look for that later...
Quoting Valentinus
Yes. The space around the bones of the joint - the natural divisions as in the real world.
We can see how this might relate to our navigating the real world.
It isn't about some knowledge of a spiritual force, available only to the few.
We have to make our way through events as they arise.
There is no time to consult a manual, map or master.
The question is how do we prepare ourselves for any tough bits ?
We can't always.
However, if we have internalised, experienced or practised a set of basic principles or morals, a way of looking at the world, then we might arrive at the best possible solution.
There is care not only in the process but in looking after the tools involved.
So, in any analysis of text, we need a sharp brain !
And that leads to the other aspects of holistic care...
I think you are being a good participant in this discussion. "Limited understanding" certainly describes my situation now. You've been around the forum for a while. You should be used to people not understanding what you're trying to say or disagreeing with you.
Quoting Amity
I suggest, if you're hoping for a response from a particular person, you tag the post for that person.
Yes - the Tao is the melting pot.
My first thought when I read this was to check other translations to see how they dealt with this issue. Here are a few.
Mitchell
[i]We work with being,
but non-being is what we use.[/i]
Addiss and Lombardo
Therefore, Having leads to profit, Not having leads to use.
Lin
[i]Therefore, that which exists is used to create benefit
That which is empty is used to create functionality[/i]
Cleary
Therefore being is for benefit, nonbeing is for usefulness.
Boy - that's not much help.
Quoting Possibility
This would make sense to me if it said that we handle, move, carry, own, have the pitcher through its substance. I just don't know what it means when we say "value." Can you give some examples of the value of the pitcher.
Actually - I like that. We possess the pitcher, but we use the emptiness. Or - We hold the pitcher, but we use the emptiness. I like that a lot.
I've been reading through all the comments, bashing my head against a wall, and I thought of this. It's not the same as what you've written about, but it's related. I first noticed this when I was practicing Tai Chi, but once I started paying more attention, I saw it in other areas where I was becoming more aware, more competent.
Practicing a new movement in Tai Chi, my actions would be mechanical. I was just trying to follow my instructors actions without reflection. I remember the first time this happened - I was practicing a move I had learned mechanically trying to pay attention. Trying to relax my body. I felt a little tickle, just a little metaphorical tingle, of something. I wasn't sure I felt something real or not. I remember thinking it would be really easy to mess around with this and it would turn out it doesn't mean anything.
So, I started paying attention to that tingle. As I continued practicing and paying attention, the signal became stronger and I became more certain there was something real there. I modified, fiddled with my practice and my attention to see if I could enhance the feeling. Maybe at that point I would talk to my teacher and she would give me a little guidance. That might change my direction, or maybe it would expand my understanding. This process continued until I came to a place when I realized that what started out as a tingle had been there all the time. It was so obvious I didn't understand how I could miss it. All of this grew - learning to become aware once made it easier to learn new things. And now I am a Tai Chi master. Not.
Thanks. I am doing my best in reading this book for the first time. It is good to be in the company of those who have read it before, attended discussion groups and more besides in the way of practice.
'Limited' could describe all of our current understanding. It is relative.
I did feel that with all your experience you knew quite a bit more.
And I did feel awkward offering help by explaining something which I saw fairly intuitively.
Perhaps because I didn't appreciate any complexity and I wasn't looking for something profound.
Yes. Like you, I have been around not only this forum for a while. It doesn't take long for anyone to know the score re misunderstandings, real or deliberate.
Quoting T Clark
Yes, that is always an option in a particular case. Most times people respond to the flow of posts and quotes.
Despite participating here for a while, I am still not au fait with all the functions.
For example, the 'view original comment' arrow. And probably many more I haven't used.
Anyway, I think this post is another distraction from the main event. So I will let it go...
Carry on with the plan, Sam.
Quoting T Clark
Will do.
Your comments regarding the logic of the characters reminds me of the fierce debates that surround the book Chinese Written Character as a Medium for Poetry regarding the "ideogrammic" nature of the writing.
The debates have been going on for a hundred years now and reflect many problems delineating differences in how languages convey meaning.
I am not qualified to offer an opinion on the matter but reading the book gave me an appreciation of how poetic expression provides different paths of association and order through different languages. For instance, the first word of the Iliad in Ancient Greek is Wrath; There is no way to express that sequence in English.
I like that too. It closely hews to the Lin version I was trying to articulate earlier but is more elegant.
I read the works as centrally concerned with how to navigate the real world.
There are elements of the mysterious that are important not to exclude. The different translators express different opinions on this dimension. Talking about those matters seems to be the biggest divide in traditions.
So, with that in mind, The Enchiridion or Handbook of Epictetus matches a lot of the imperative quality of the speech even if what the problem is said to be starts from such different beginnings.
The rejection of a manual requires its own manual.
Quoting Amity
The basic structure of English is subject-prominent, and conceals evidence of an overall subjective position. The phrase “I think/feel/believe that...” is excluded from most statements that we make. In philosophical discussions, most of us charitably add this phrase to the beginning of statements (unless we’re discussing logic), but this adds a dimensional layer of complexity that doesn’t parse easily.
As an example, in English when we say “the cone is round”, we don’t mean that these ideas of ‘cone’ and ‘round’ are equal - we’re referring to a fixed perspective in relation to the cone. We’re saying that the cone appears round in shape from a certain perspective, but this is not clear just by looking at the words or understanding the sentence structure. We need to roughly understand the author’s relation to the ideas in the statement, in order to understand the meaning of the statement. That’s easy enough when we’re steeped in the conceptual system, but it may prove difficult for, say, a computer to interpret.
The Chinese characters for ‘cone’ specifically describe a round, tapered form anyway, so a direct translation of this statement as such would be tautological. But if they did make this statement, they would specify that round is describing a shape in relation to the cone, and in doing so, the variability of perspective is implied. The literal translation would be ‘round tapered form (cone) is round in shape’. So once we relate to these ideas, the Chinese text relies on far less contextual information to understand how they fit together to form one complex idea. I don’t need to understand the author’s relation to these ideas in order to understand the meaning. Form refers to a 3D structure, and shape refers to a 2D structure, so there’s a clear logical relationship here between the cone and its roundness that was not obvious in the English statement.
...
Incidentally, I’ve noticed there are at least nine ways to describe a connection of ‘being’ in Chinese. Wei means ‘to act as’ or in the capacity of, implying an indirect relation of ‘being’ between the structures of action and intention/potential. I think wu wei refers to the idea in which this kind of indirect relation would be obscured or undetermined, or appear to be missing.
Yes. Your second example - “If I put it on a shelf, my house will be more attractive” - is to behold value in the substance of the pitcher, and derive benefit from that (for the house). The other three derive usefulness from the potential that exists in the pitcher’s lack or removal of substance. If the pitcher is no longer in my possession, for its removal I will have money, gratitude or appreciation.
I like it more the more I think about it. I think that's because it has that ironic twist, that forced switch in perspective, that my favorite verses in the TTC have.
You mentioned Lin's translation. This is part of his commentary on Verse 12:
Therefore, we can see how we create solid objects to provide us with benefits and convenience, but it is actually the emptiness formed by, or embedded in such objects that really provide them with functionality and usefulness.
It's "actually" and "really" that makes the point for me.
I'm seeing it differently than that. I own the pitcher, but I use the emptiness. I hold the pitcher by it's clay handle, but the hollowness is what actually allows the pitcher to function.
This essay is very helpful - thank you. Here is a PDF version (unfortunately without the Chinese characters).
An excerpt:
You don’t really own it, though. Your possession of it is an event in which you are relating to the pitcher’s substantial potentiality (its capacity to be held, seen, felt, etc), and your use of it is an event in which you are relating to the pitcher’s insubstantial potentiality (its capacity to be empty or filled, sold, given away, etc).
Perhaps, yes. So many 'How To...' Handbooks' about all kinds of subjects.
In my previous post, I was talking not about rejecting a manual or looking for another manual.
It was about the outcome of having read and practised your chosen manual so that it becomes natural.
You don't have to think about how to act; you have internalised the careful process of observation, assessment, evaluation so that it becomes second nature.
You no longer need to carry the physical book around with you.
Basically, applied wei wu wei.
However, as you say, there is still the chance that it no longer suits your purposes and so you might look for something else...
Perhaps a manual in how to choose a manual. Philosophy ?
Nothing is set in stone.
I think it is important not to be rigid with fixed beliefs.
I think that reading the TTC and similar can help increase flexibility and and awareness of our own limited perspectives.
Thank you for this. I will have to read carefully. It requires more time and thought.
It really deserves its own thread. Perhaps in the Philosophy of Language ?
Again this is fascinating and worthy of further discussion.
I think others interested in e.g. the philosophy of language will miss this gem, hidden away here.
Thanks.
Grateful for the pdf link. Will read later.
I agree. I was trying to express that up-thread by saying that the agenda Lao Tzu strives to replace is not the same kind he is advocating for. That difference is where the Taoist challenges many views of Confucius.
I don't know what "substantial potentiality" and "insubstantial potentiality" mean.
@Valentinus - I agree with @Possibility. This is an interesting paper. The language seemed very out of date. I looked up the author. He died in 1908, so it makes sense. It as edited by Ezra Pound.
I forwarded it to a friend of mine who is a linguist with an interest in Chinese language. I'll see what he thinks.
Thanks.
I've been thinking about this more. I'm comfortable with what we've worked out for the meaning of the lines, but I'm still working on the other issue I had with the verse - The use of "being" and "non-being" seems to mean something different in this verse than it does in other verses, as I noted in particular, Verse 1.
Ellen Marie Chen translation
The five colors blind a person's eyes;
The five musical notes deafen a person's ears;
The five flavors ruin a person's taste buds.
Horse-racing, hunting and chasing,
Drive a person's mind (hsin) to madness.
Hard-to-get goods,
Hinder a person's actions.
Therefore the sage is for the belly, not for the eyes.
Therefore he leaves this and chooses that.
Heshang Gong commentary
[i]Greed and lust for beautiful appearances cause injury to the vital essence and loss of brilliance.
If one longs to hear the five notes, harmonious energy breath leaves the heart and they cannot hear the sound of the soundless.
They excite and destroy it. People who have a weakness for the five flavours end up destroying their mouths. This is to say that they lose Dao.
People’s spiritual vitality loves tranquility and stillness. Quickly breathing in and out in haste causes the spiritual vitality to scatter and die. A person then becomes insane.
Interfere, here, means to injure. “Goods which are difficult to obtain” refers to gold, silver, precious stones, and jade. The heart-mind which is greedy, and thinks about what it desires does not know how to be content when it has enough. This causes one’s journey to suffer and their character to be insulted.
By guarding the five intrinsic natures, abandoning the six emotions, and uniting the energy-breath of the will, spiritual intelligence is cultivated.
The eyes should not look frantically. Regarding frantically leaks out vital essence.
They leave frantic looking, and take the cultivation of pure nature (xing) by way of the stomach.[/i]
This seems like a pretty straight-forward verse. Sensual pleasures (sounds, tastes, and sights), greed, and excitement damage our perception organs and mind. I think this means they distract us from our perception of the Tao, which requires quiet contemplation. I guess they are the result of or a reflection of desire.
I had another thought. The five musical notes seem to refer to the Chinese pentatonic scale. The ancient Chinese also had a system of five colors that represent directions, planets, or elements. They also classify flavors into five categories which generally match those we use. Maybe the use of these words references division of the natural world into rigid conventional categories. "The five colors blind a person's eyes" might mean that thinking in terms of those categories keeps us from seeing the world directly. I haven’t seen this interpretation anywhere else.
The message of TTC is realization of the duality; the intellectual being a tool that can assist us if we accept its impermanent nature, but always pointing towards the non-intellectual where The Truth resides.
Well, that was a welcome surprise, thank you.
Quoting Valentinus
I have missed parts of this thread, so thanks for spelling that out. Most helpful.
Thanks synthesis.
I am sure that all this analytical 'doing' will be the 'undoing' of me.
I have decided to take it easy and go with the flow, wherever it leads...
The meanings do seem to change in different verses. Maybe it has to do with us having to pursue different paths to approach what is the same. I like D.C Lau's version of this in Verse 1 as way to separate the experiences.
"The nameless was the beginning of heaven and earth;
The named was the mother of the myriad creatures.
Hence always rid yourself of desires to observe its secrets;
But always allow yourself to have desires in order to observe its manifestations.
These two are the same.
But diverge in name as they issue forth."
Perhaps the differences of meaning are related to which kind of observation is required.
I'm not sure, but I do like that translation. None of the other translations use the word "allow" in reference to desire. That makes a big difference.
It does make a big difference. I do think there are separate experiences being considered here.
I will mull in the idea while considering the other translations.
I see this verse a little differently. I think it has more to do with the fact that when we seek to overwhelm the senses or indulge in excess, we’re unable to appreciate the diverse qualities of the world.
To enjoy colour, we need to be able to distinguish the different light frequencies. All of them at once creates a bright white light - with a colourless, blinding quality.
To enjoy sounds, we need to be able to distinguish the different tones and frequencies. All of them at once make noise - with a deafening quality.
To enjoy flavours, we need to be able to distinguish different smells and tastes. Strong neutral flavouring cleanses the palate of any lingering tastes, enabling us to then enjoy the delicate flavours in fine wine or food.
A continually fast pace, or a busy life full of high stress is maddening, frantic, crazy.
When something is exceedingly rare and treasured, it can drive a person towards harmful, negative behaviour.
Therefore, the sage seeks only what he needs, not what he sees (acts in the capacity of his belly, not his eye). So he foregoes that in order to choose this.
I remember as a child being scolded by my mother (who grew up in Singapore) when I dished up a quantity of food I couldn’t finish: “your eyes were too big for your belly”.
All of this refers back to the relation between substance and lack: if we concentrate only on filling our world to the brim, then it leaves no room to appreciate wu in relation to the Tao.
I think this is right.
Your interpretation is in keeping with that of Ivanhoe's notes concerning V12.
First, his translation:
The five colours blind our eyes.
The five notes deafen our ears.
The five flavours deaden our palates.
The chase and hunt madden our hearts.
Precious goods impede our activities.
This is why sages are for the belly and not for the eye;
And so they cast off the one and take up the other.
His notes:
These sets of five refer to the conventional standards of evaluation in regard to the different sensory faculties. The passage is not a rejection of the pleasures of the senses nor does it express skepticism regarding the senses per se. Rather, like the view one finds in Zhuangzi, Chapter 2 ( see pp. 209-19), it expresses a profound distrust of conventional categories and values and advocates moderation of sensual pleasures.
------
Quoting T Clark
This ties in with ' the chase and hunt maddens our hearts'.
It makes sense to me as someone who can become overwhelmed with all that is out there and wanting to find out more...
When I should be settling down to the book; simply reading and enjoying the poetry and words conveying wisdom. To digest and then discuss.
I think @Possibility with her own interpretation is practising and explaining this perfectly :sparkle:
Quoting Possibility
Another :up:
Your way of seeing things has been helpful for me. Not that others aren't.
I guess the difference between my way of seeing it and yours is the distinction between my "perceive the Tao" and your "appreciate the diverse qualities of the world." I guess I would interpret "diverse qualities" as referring to the 10,000 things. That carries through to the other senses described.
Quoting Possibility
The distinction between belly and eyes you describe is echoed by some other commentators. Others see things differently. Here's Chen, who includes your interpretation among others:
[i]This is a persistent primitivistic theme in the text—that humans should be contented with the simple pleasures of life (ch. 80) and that the overstimulation of the senses renders them incapable of functioning smoothly...
...According to Wang Pi the issue is between preservation or dissipation of the self. The sage makes things serve him; he does not enslave himself to things. Food, which is for the belly, serves to sustain the body, but the eyes lead us to outside distractions and dissipate the body’s energies.
...We suggest that the symbols of the belly and the eyes go deeper. The belly, representing instinct, the unconscious, and the unopened self, is the seat of life and unity (Gebser: 145). The eyes, opening us to the external world, represent consciousness, sight being the most refined and intellectual of the senses.[/i]
Quoting Possibility
My father always said "Your eyes are bigger than your stomach."
Quoting Possibility
Where you read substance and lack I see being and non-being; 10,000 things and Tao. I think we're talking about different things, but I'm not sure.
After I read your response, I went and looked some more. I still haven't found anyone else who uses this interpretation. I'm still not sure I believe that's what it meant, although it seems like a deeper meaning than the other ones we're talking about. I went and bought his book. I'm glad you found it. Thanks.
I'm glad you found it useful. It might not always be to your liking though.
Ivanhoe was recommended to me by a friend who read the translation as part of an anthology: "Readings in Classical Chinese Philosophy".
I found and downloaded the excerpt ( Chapter 4 ) from: https://terebess.hu/english/tao/_index.html
I think the book might be better, perhaps with more information.
Look forward to hearing more...
I am being helped by all the contributions given by all the contributors and am glad there is a discussion with enough center of gravity to allow the ideas to survive different points of view.
Most of the discussions I have had along these lines in meat space have been conditioned by impatience of one kind or another.
I did say qualities, but I think it makes more sense to say quality. The Tao, for me, IS the diverse quality of the world as a relational whole, inclusive of wu. I’m referring to both the existence and non-existence of quality here. The 10,000 things is not inclusive of wu. It’s a process of consolidation, which necessarily excludes the qualitative aspect of the Tao that pertains to it as a relational whole, as something that possibly exists in itself.
Quoting T Clark
Chen and Wang Pi seem to relate to the text as an ethical position, as if it’s telling the reader how they should behave, what is good and what is bad. This is common practice in relation to ancient metaphysical texts, but I think it’s a mistake to assume that either the text or its author has that kind of authority over us (and I think Lao Tzu makes a disclaimer to this effect in the second verse).
FWIW, I disagree with the isolated message ‘that humans should be content with the simple pleasures of life’ - I think this is a misunderstanding. Having said that, I do think that contentment with simple pleasures has merit in relation to certain situations, but it cannot stand alone as an instruction for a ‘good’ life.
I also disagree that “the sage makes things serve him”. It isn’t about slave or enslave, and preservation of the self is not the goal here - but I think we may see this more clearly in verse 13. Seeing a ‘thing’ we don’t have but could have, we have a tendency to want it, regardless of whether or not we need it. The sage understands the difference, and isn’t concerned with ‘things’ in relation to the ‘self’, but with his/her participation in the flow of energy. Recognising a qualitative lack (what the eyes or other senses tell us about our relation to the world) is not the same as recognising need (what the belly or other interoception tells us about our internal energy requirements). When we look at an ocean view of blues and greens, we don’t concern ourselves with ‘fixing’ the lack of redness. And when we listen to a symphony, we don’t complain that the cymbalist isn’t playing most of the time. The lack is an important part of the whole.
Quoting T Clark
I think perhaps we’re looking at the same relation in different ways. The terms ‘being’ and ‘non-being’ refer to a particular level of awareness, which is often associated with human consciousness. The terms ‘substance’ and ‘lack’ I used in relation to the previous verse because it referred to a different level of awareness - a tangible, observable relation to the world. But the idea is the same - this relates to your issue that verse 11 seems to change the meaning of ‘being’ and ‘non-being’.
(EDIT: Chinese characters aren’t words, they’re more like ideas. Each character embodies the most complex rendering of an idea, and its contextual application determines the relative complexity referred to in the text. So it isn’t surprising for me that the ‘meaning’ of the character changes in relation to its context. It’s supposed to.)
The difference between ‘the 10,000 things’ and ‘the Tao’ is the same idea again at a more complex level of awareness - but at some point we have to accept that it’s the relation we’re referring to, not two different ‘things’. ‘The 10,000 things’ refers to, but is not, the Tao. And ‘the Tao’ refers to, but is not, the Tao. They’re relative aspects of one absolute.
I don't see it as a problem that meanings or use of a word changes in different verses depending on what subject is being addressed. Being and Non-Being can describe different states of affairs.
Potential meanings:
Being (yu) : having, existing, substance, (having a) name > the named.
Non- Being (wu): not having, not existing, emptiness, ( not having a) name > the nameless.
[ Edit: source: https://tao-in-you.com/to-have-not-to-have-in-tao-te-ching/ ]
In V1 - it's about the name or concept and the way it exists or operates outside of the boundaries of language, the unmanifest.
Quoting Valentinus
In V 11 - it's about the substance and lack.
Quoting T Clark
Quoting T Clark
From my understanding the Tao is the way or course or path of all things.
For this to be effective, or of benefit, we need to see the usefulness of wu, the empty aspect, as well as the yu, the substance.
When we assess the value or quality of anything e.g. the book, the TTC, we don't just look at the primary objective properties or qualities of it ( the cover, presentation ), we look at the secondary qualities, the subjective ( the reading, the meaning, the subjective interpretations).
:up: I am likewise helped.
Quoting Valentinus
Well, that happens here too, and worse.
I have learned not to fire off a response when tired and meet with some kind of difficulty.
It's good to take time out to breathe, back away and balance before replying.
Then again, I enjoy the spontaneity when in agreement with something that makes me smile.
When there is an easy flow...you know.
Both work well here :smile:
I look back and see the many definitions:
Quoting T Clark
Within the Tao - the Way, there can be a particular tao or way of looking at or doing things.
As individuals, we might be on the same general path but we differ in what we see along it.
All perspectives count...for their potential value...
Does that sound about right ?
That's where I keep coming up against a wall. The Tao is completely not diverse. It is all one no-thing. The 10,000 things are diverse. You know, 10,000 and all.
Quoting Possibility
The TTC clearly intends to provide guidance to rulers about how to lead their country. I don't really see that as an ethical issue, more of a how-to. I wonder if maybe that tone is an artifact of translation from ancient Chinese into English.
Quoting Possibility
I don't think that is a misunderstanding by either you or Lao Tzu. I think you just disagree with him. Not that there's anything wrong with that. I'm trying to understand what Lao Tzu is saying. Once I've got that, I can decide whether it's something that works for me.
Quoting Possibility
I agree with the first sentence. I still don't get your usage of "substance" and "lack." It seems like it trivializes something profound. The most profound thing in a profound book.
Quoting Possibility
In agreement with this, here is text from Derek Lin's translation of Verse 1:
[i]Thus, constantly free of desire
One observes its wonders
Constantly filled with desire
One observes its manifestations
These two emerge together but differ in name
The unity is said to be the mystery
Mystery of mysteries, the door to all wonders[/i]
I got confused. I thought "What does this have to do with the five sounds?" Then I realized it comes from the previous verse.
There certainly is a lot of ambiguity in what Lao Tzu writes. "Being" and "non-being" are among the most important concepts in the TTC. The two possible different uses we are talking about are really different. There may come a time when I accept things are as you've said. I'm a pretty lazy person and I tend to move along if I can't figure things out right away. That being said, I've found that, if I give up digging too soon, I miss important things. I have a feeling that may be happening here.
Quoting Amity
As I said, if I give up digging too soon and just assume it's just one of those ancient inscrutable Chinesey things, I am likely to miss something important.
Yes, of course. But then, some interpretations are not just ambiguous, they're wrong. More likely - that I'm not understanding what Lao Tzu and/or the interpreter are trying to say. The TTC is ambiguous, but it's not loosey-goosey or new age. I'm sure that's not what you meant to say.
[i]Regarding the difference between the 10,000 things and the Tao:
In line with chapter 1:
The 10,000 things (being) can be named. The Tao that can be named is what gives rise to them. They are manifest in desire, that is, what we want, what we depend on.
The nameless Tao is the beginning of Heaven and earth. I think Heaven and earth are the names given to the wu in which beings are manifest, where they dwell. Perhaps desire must be eliminated because desire transforms them into what they are for us, makes the mystery into something that we can comprehend, thereby distorting it.
There are mysteries and manifestations - what cannot be named and what can be named - wu and beings - the nameless Tao and the named Tao[/i]
What sayest thou...anybody... ?
Note well: even the sage isn't sure... :smile:
She sends this reassurance:
If you are not getting yourself tied in knots you are missing something. It is after all, an enigma within a deeper enigma (chapter 1) :nerd:
Whose commentary is this?
Quoting Amity
What the commentator has written is similar to the other translators and commentaries. What are your thoughts about it?
It just struck me we haven't talked about heaven and earth yet. I went back and checked. Maybe I'll do a post just on that. It's an important idea that I haven't got a good feel for.
ThusSpakeSagaxa. But she likes 'Saige' better. I call her Saggy1.
Quoting T Clark
Whatever the name, she is Heaven Scent and the message good :halo:
Quoting T Clark
Saggy1 sends you best wishes and this Old Celtic Blessing:
'May the road rise up to meet you.
May the wind be always at your back.
May the sun shine warm upon your face,
the rains fall soft upon your fields
and until we meet again,
may God hold you in the palm of His hand.'
She adds:
May the knife you wield be a sharp one *
May it shine upon you
And not get blunt.
Amen :pray:
* Handle With Care
I think I understand what you mean. But for me, it’s a difference between quantitative distinction (thingness) and qualitative diversity (variability). The Tao is one but not a thing - it is variability without thingness, whether one or 10,000.
Quoting T Clark
I agree that it seems to come down to translation/interpretation. But I don’t think the intentions of the text are clear at all. I believe those seeking a how-to on running their country will find one, and those seeking an ethical structure will find one, too. I think that’s the beauty of the Chinese language: it’s like a system language for navigating the Tao with a limited understanding. And the TTC is like a self-diagnostic program that can be run on any integrated structure of relations to help refine its operation in relation to the Tao, regardless of the level of awareness, connection or collaboration.
I agree that the context of heaven and earth is important. I brought up Verse 5 earlier because the "cosmology" sharply differentiates the two realms the same Dao is said to bring about.
Seeing as how all of our experience happens on "this" side of the Heavenly Gate, it is remarkable that any of our observations could inform us of anything about the other side.
Is this a friend of yours? I couldn't find her on the web.
Quoting Amity
So, you're saying she smells nice?
Yes. The thing that is a thing is not the eternal Thing.
Quoting Possibility
I have no trouble with that description, as long as it doesn't mean that the TTC is all things to all people. I think Lao Tzu wrote it with specific things in mind. I've said this before - The Tao is not a thing, it is an experience. Lao Tzu is leading us to experience the Tao. Maybe the path will be different for different people.
I'm working on the next verse now. When I'm done with that I'll do a post on heaven and earth so we can talk about it.
Stephen Mitchell
[i]Success is as dangerous as failure.
Hope is as hollow as fear.
What does it mean that success is as dangerous as failure?
Whether you go up the ladder or down it,
you position is shaky.
When you stand with your two feet on the ground,
you will always keep your balance.
What does it mean that hope is as hollow as fear?
Hope and fear are both phantoms
that arise from thinking of the self.
When we don't see the self as self,
what do we have to fear?
See the world as your self.
Have faith in the way things are.
Love the world as your self;
then you can care for all things.[/i]
The more I read other translations of the TTC, the more I feel that Stephen Mitchell leaves too much out. On the other hand, I might not have ever read the TTC at all if it hadn’t been as accessible as his is. This verse has always been one of my favorites. “Success is as dangerous as failure. Hope is as hollow as fear,” are the lines that really struck me the first time I read it. There’s another, similar line in Mitchell’s version of Verse 46 – “There is no greater illusion than fear….Whoever can see through all fear will always be safe.”
Learning to deal with fear has been a big struggle in my life. To be able to approach it from the outside as an illusion makes sense to me, but making sense and leading to change are two different things. I think if I had one wish it would be to be fearless. I understand what the lines mean. I even have an idea of what it feels like, but it’s not something I can do consistently. On the other hand, being retired has finally given me a chance to live without hope for success. That comes naturally to me. It’s wonderful.
I’m going to take a look at some of the lines.
Success is as dangerous as failure.
Some other translations are more explicit about this. Chen writes “Honors elevate (shang),
Disgraces depress (hsia).” Addis and Lombardo translate “Favour debases us. Afraid when we get it, Afraid when we lose it.” So, success leads to fear and failure leads to fear.
Hope and fear are both phantoms that arise from thinking of the self.
Chen writes “I have great misfortunes, Because I have a body.” That’s a really interesting difference. Some say “self,” some say “body.” When they say “self” they generally seem to be talking about social misfortunes. When they talk about the “body,” they talk about physical or medical misfortunes. That seems like a big difference. With the first, I get the feeling of the self as an unfortunate illusion. With the second I get the feeling of the body as something good that I can’t have if I’m not willing to face the negative consequences.
When we don't see the self as self, what do we have to fear?
Chen writes "If I don't have a body, What misfortunes do I have?" Addis and Lombardo say "No self, No distress." Ivanhoe translates "When I no longer have a body, what calamity could I possibly have?
[i]See the world as your self.
Have faith in the way things are.
Love the world as your self;
then you can care for all things.[/i]
Chen writes
[i]Therefore treasure the body as the world,
As if the body can be entrusted to the world.
Love the body as the world,
As if the body can be entrusted to the world.[/i]
What does it mean to see the world as yourself? What does it mean to treasure your body as the world? To see your self as part of the whole, as unified with the Tao? And your body? Again, the use of "self" vs. "body" seems to make a big difference in the meaning.
One stanza says you can care for all things, the other says you can let the world care for you. Is that right? I'm not sure. I think this ties in with wu wei. If we let our actions arise spontaneously, we won't damage the world.
The A.C Muller version gives a different emphasis on the quality of the fear by translating the character of j?ng in its meaning: "to startle."
Muller's first line reads: "Accept humiliation as a surprise." The rest of his version is too intent upon drafting a maxim than explaining the text for my liking but the physicality of interpreting the first line is interesting.
Only "bodies" react to surprises. Using the word "self" seems counterproductive here. The equality of success and failure concerns a connection that doesn't involve how obviously different the results are for us as benefits. The alternative to fear is not a change in the reaction itself but where the "body" is.
Beyond the shock of humiliation, there is dread for the future. Maybe this verse is about isolation.
Why do you ask ? What does it matter ?
Why would a sage sent from Heaven not be a friend ?
Quoting T Clark
Saige: Sagaxa by any other name would smell as sweet.
Me: It depends on where you are standing and what direction the wind is blowing.
Verse 13
Right away it reminds me of Marcus Aurelius (MA) and Stoicism. I gave a link earlier re comparative philosophies. There is a close connection between those of the West and East. Perhaps that is why I am attracted to this discussion...I can understand the sense of it, if not all the words and terms.
As @Valentinus said earlier:
Quoting Valentinus
Quoting T Clark
I think that the Tao is not a thing or an experience. It just is. It's the source from which all things come and to which all things return. Lao Tzu poetically guides us in the philosophy...the practice. The 'How to...'
MA talks about 'universal nature'. So, it seems similar in referring to the cause and wordless interconnection of all existence on Earth and non-existence or non-substance in Heaven.
The apparent aim is to be guided by this 'force' so that we can navigate a world taking good care of ourselves and our resources so as to reach a state of wellbeingness.
Stoicism
Quoting wiki
The key is 'Care'.
Quoting T Clark
The individual is part of the whole - see later in post.
I am not sure the difference between 'self' and 'body' is the issue here. Both are our concern - the physical and the mental or spiritual aspects.
Ivanhoe talks of apprehension and reverence.
Saige tells me, as if I couldn't see for myself, that the text both asks and answers the questions.
Q: What does it mean to be apprehensive about favour and disgrace ?
A: To receive it is to be in the position of a subordinate. When you get it be apprehensive. When you lose it be apprehensive.
In other words, be careful. If our happiness and sense of self-worth rely on others, then we might be harmed. Take care of yourself.
Just look at those looking to increase or abandon 'friends' on social media.
What is a friend?
Yes, Saige, I hear ya'. Favour and disgrace can't be trusted. Both can bring harm. Be cautious.
Got it.
Next Q: What does it mean to revere calamity as you revere your own body ?
A: I can suffer calamity only because I have a body.
Saige giggles. What's so funny ?
''I think there is a little joke here - when I no longer have a body I am dead. What calamity could befall the dead?''
S. also sees apprehension and reverence as modes of care.
A central concern to individual bodies and the world.
The body is a part of the whole world.
What does it mean to take care of, or to care for either ?
Well, one answer to that would be: First do no harm. Avoid harm.
Those who care for the world must know how to prevent potential calamity.
They can't do that without looking after themselves first.
Promote good health, prevent ill health.
Knowledge is power.
D.C. Lau uses "startle" also.
Quoting Valentinus
Some translations say "surprise" some say "fear". Some translations say "body" some say "self." The choices all make sense, but they mean significantly different things. I like "fear" better because it means more to me personally. In the same way, I like "self" better. That seems like a more profound meaning to me. For me, one version (fear/self) means look inside yourself. The other (surprise/body) seems more like "Hey, chill out."
Quoting Valentinus
I think that's the point - we need to reexamine whether the benefits of success are really benefits, since it puts us in a vulnerable position. It seems to go back to the old "Don't struggle for honors' argument.
Quoting Valentinus
I think there is dread for the future in both success and failure. Or at least Lao Tzu thinks so. I'm not sure what you mean by "isolation" in this context.
Looking more closely at the surprise/fear; body/self thing makes me think I have missed something in this verse.
I feel the same. The ball gets more slippery the more I handle it. However one frames the fear, it seems like the verse goes from not being overwhelmed by one means or another to the good leader treating his milieu as if it was his own self/body. I don't understand the instructions.
Quoting T Clark
For me, the inequality between being shamed or being honored is connected to the fear of failing to accomplish a task or duty. Beyond the pain of embarrassment or the pleasure of recognition, what is most scary about the prospect of failure is the withdrawal of trust by others to do something. During 40 years of work in the building trade, the confidence of others grew as my skills became more capable and my familiarity with what was in front of me grew.
But that process only happened because I risked the loss of that confidence by trying something that was not mine yet. When the risk didn't work out, I became relatively isolated by those I gambled with.
In the realm of personal relationships, the loss of trust can end the party entirely.
Often when someone references a source, I go look it up on the web. I tried that but didn't find anything, so I wondered if this was someone you could give me a link to.
Quoting Amity
I think the practice, the how to, refers to the experience of the Tao. It can't be known or understood, only surrendered to.
Quoting Amity
There is only one world. All philosophers are describing the same thing.
Quoting Amity
My body and my self are both things I call "me," but they are really different. It means something different to say "See your body as the world" rather than "See your self as the world." Except, in some way, apparently, it's not different.
Quoting Amity
Quoting Amity
I do like Ivanhoe's take on this verse, although I don't see the significance of apprehension/reverence.
Quoting Amity
Not necessarily. I can also have no body when I have seen through the illusion that my body is my self.
I think a lot of Lao Tzu's instructions are "Hey, Valentinus, over here, pay attention to this."
Quoting Valentinus
This is something I've been thinking about a lot recently. I've had lots of talks with my son who lost his job and career to Covid 19 at the age of 35. He is horribly afraid that he has disappointed people. That he will disappoint people. I think this is something that is especially important for men. I think jobs, achievement, mean something different for men than they do for women. For women, they're something. For men, they're everything.
Retiring has put a whole new perspective on this issue. Suddenly, I'm not defined by my duties or people's expectations of me. That can be hard, but it can also be incredibly freeing. I recommend that everyone retire immediately.
I am always up for a good koan. The map and the territory are always difficult to line up. All these different interpretations of the verse suggests to me that I am not the only one looking at the map with some confusion.
Quoting T Clark
As my Sifu, Ry Cooder, once sang: "Romance without finance is a nuisance, so honey, give me your dough."
I have had the good fortune to take my work seriously without it having it be the only thing that was important for me to take care of. In fact, I only dedicated myself to treating it as a career in my early forties. Some of that was a matter of wanting to work at a certain level and some of that was existential in needing the dough for me and mine. I got to spend several years as the stay at home dad. I spent years remodeling my place.
As a result, I am conditioned (or biased, perhaps) to read the Taoists as calling for disengaging from some values and motivations while also acknowledging the need for work to happen. The "letting things happen" side of Wu Wei certainly seems to involve a lot of people working with serious dedication. In Zhuangzi, there are many interchanges between trades-people and scholars that show the groups in tension regarding the "instructions" without suggesting the points of view possible by each side can be removed by the other. Amongst all the strongly voiced declarations, ambiguity has found a place to abide.
The territory that can be mapped is not the eternal territory.
How's that? All Taoist and wise and all.
Quoting Valentinus
Yes, well, that is the most common response to my retirement suggestion.
Quoting Valentinus
Our lives have some parallels. I dropped out of college and worked for 15 years before I went back and got my engineering degree at 36. I spent most of that 15 years as a cabinetmaker. I also spent years expanding and remodeling my house. I even spent 3 months taking care of my daughter right after she was born. I've told people that running a household is a lot like construction management. You plan ahead, but you spend most of your time taking care of one problem after another.
Quoting Valentinus
This has always been really important to me - trying to figure out where the motivation for action comes from. How can you force action from the heart. Of course, you can't.
When we translate from Chinese to English, we try to translate all the characters, and then try to work out how the pieces fit together in our existing conceptual structures of experience and language. If it doesn’t seem to fit, there’s a tendency or temptation to distort the quality of these ideas, like forcing pieces of a jigsaw together. But the Chinese language has a very specific structure to it - and the way the ideas relate to each other in this structure is supposed to challenge the way we understand the world. The verses of the TTC are supposed to lead us to an irreconcilable contradiction every time - that’s when I think we get close.
Quoting T Clark
The way I see it, this line describes the idea of favouring humility (disgrace) as seemingly scary - implying this fear is illusory, as in your quote from verse 46. Rúo refers to an indirect way of being - to seem, like, as, if. I like the suggestion from other translations that the idea may be more startling than scary - I think it removes the tendency to avoid, and rather suggests that we may simply feel unprepared.
The verse later fleshes out this first idea, which I translate as:
We seem to fear seeking a lower position and being content with what we have - we’re afraid to fail.
Contentment here is not about avoiding the challenges of life, but about not always needing to appear to be a success - about recognising that humility, embarrassment or failure is the first step to learning, and therefore has value in our lives. Whether we succeed or fail, this feeling of fear or unpreparedness doesn’t really go away, it only shifts.
The idea of favour in relation to humility or disgrace is a difficult one to grasp. Many translations prefer to keep them separate, and juxtapose them somewhere further down, but this seemingly contradictory relation is placed first because it IS the main topic - and that topic is scary, startling, something we feel unprepared for.
The second idea introduced in this verse is that of value or nobility in a life of great suffering, which also seems startling/scary. I think it’s important to note that the first idea talks about favouring, while the second talks about valuing something as expensive or noble. These relations don’t have the same quality.
Overall, I think this verse is about the courage to face what can seem a frightening perspective on life. Lao Tzu seems to makes a distinction in how we look at our potential: do we see our value in the life we live, full of suffering, or in the potential of this life’s interaction with the world - however brief, humiliating or painful it seems? The fact is that there is no possibility of a living existence without great suffering - and we can either focus on the suffering, or on the possibilities.
Quoting T Clark
Shen refers to the main part of a structure, whether that is the body, life, morality and conduct, mind or self. It’s all of it, really - as far as our awareness of it goes. It doesn’t mean ‘the body’ as a separate entity from ‘the self’, but an integral part of a broader structure.
Wú refers to ‘I’ or ‘my’ - it’s easy to assume this means ‘the self’ as an entity, except it refers not to a thing, but to the position each of us takes in relation to the text, to the experience/idea, or to the Tao. How we might define ‘self’ isn’t relevant here - it’s more about the relation.
The later fleshing out of this second idea I would translate as:
In order to exist, I am one who suffers greatly, and in the capacity of this living existence up until my death, I exist - how is this unfortunate?
Why do we fear this idea of value or nobility in what we can only escape by ceasing to exist? Yes, existence necessitates suffering, but the alternative is not existing - it removes this main structure. So where @Amity mentions that “without a body I am dead”, I don’t think we can overlook this reality. My existence depends on substance, and as much as I can think of the self as immaterial, it’s actually inseparable from this substance: a living existence that suffers greatly and then dies. This is a startling reality for some of us to face, a frightening one for others. But it’s undeniable, all the same.
Quoting T Clark
This is not quite how I understand this part. There are two different sets of characters here that he has translated to read ‘as if the body can be entrusted to the world’.
I see it more as:
So, to evaluate your life used for the world is to depend on the world; to love your life as used for the world is to be entrusted with the world.
There are two important distinctions here. The first is between ‘evaluate’ (treasure) and ‘love’ in relation to the life we have as part of the world. The second is between depending on (being entrusted to) and being entrusted with that world.
We are a temporary gift to the world. We can see that gift as one of expensive value and nobility, as if entrusted to the world. This perspective is dependent on the world to recognise that value and use our life carefully. The alternative is to see that gift as one of love, in which we are entrusted with the world. This perspective empowers us to collaborate with the world in a way that builds a lasting value and significance into our gift, so that it continues to give well beyond our death.
I appreciate this personal account. I think it relates to the distinction in this verse between focusing on the fear or the possibilities in life and risk. I’d suggest that the risks you took, whether or not they appeared to work out for everyone involved, no doubt taught you something about your trade each time, building on your skills and capacity, and also taught you something about how the industry works. What you may have lost in the confidence of others was more about their fear than about your actual failure. It’s not easy to focus on the possibilities rather than the fear, either in failure or success.
Their perspective seemed to also be one of entrusting their life to your venture. I think the last part of this verse is very much about accepting responsibility for the risks we take in life, as part of enhancing our gift to the world, or else we allow others to set the value of our gift.
Over the past year, I've spent time with a lot of different translations of the TTC. All and all, I think Mitchell's translation holds up well. He does tend to put a more western accent on some things. That's not necessarily a bad thing.
I've had disagreements with others about such words as "suffering" and "illusion," which are a big part of Buddhist teaching. I've taken the side that there are analogous concepts in Taoism, but the emphasis is different. I don't see suffering as a big theme in the TTC.
Quoting Possibility
Are you a Chinese speaker? You certainly seem to know a lot about the language. If you are, I have a few questions.
Quoting Possibility
I'm still working on the difference between fear and surprise. As I said, I have a preference for "fear" because it speaks to me directly. What surprise and fear have in common is expectation. I think Lao Tzu may be telling us not to expect anything, good or bad. I think the sense of reaching for honor or cringing from shame, what you call a tendency to avoid, are a big part of the story here.
Quoting Possibility
I think Lao Tzu is making a much stronger statement than that. Fear and surprise are a result of expectations. No expectations, no fear, no surprise. It's not about overcoming fear, it's about seeing that there's nothing there.
Hope is the same thing as fear. Success is the same thing as failure.
Quoting Possibility
I really don't see this.
Quoting Possibility
I think he's trying to help us get to a place where courage is not needed. I don't think sages are brave.
Your post is long, so I'm going to take a break and respond to the rest in a later post.
"Self" and "body" are different, and I think that may be an important difference between the translations. I also think they have something in common - they refer to how we see ourselves, judge ourselves.
Quoting Possibility
This, and some of your other interpretations, seem to me to be too lofty. To me, this verse, all the verses actually, describe things that are down-home, everyday, run of the mill, no big deal.
Quoting Possibility
I wondered if this is a misprint and should be written "Love the body as the world; As if the world can be entrusted to the body." I checked in Chen's book and it's the same as listed on the webpage.
Quoting Possibility
I think this means something like "If you learn to deal with honors and misfortunes without hope or fear, you will be trustworthy" Chen thinks this verse is aimed at leaders, so it might be "a trustworthy ruler."
It has been really helpful to have you commenting on these verses. We often disagree, but that gives me an incentive to figure out what I really think Lao Tzu is saying. Thank you.
Neither do I - but I think it’s an important aspect of this particular verse, is all.
Quoting T Clark
No, I’m not. My background is PR communications, and I have a passion for written languages, hermeneutics and variations in linguistic structure. The structure of traditional Chinese pinyin appears to solve many of the issues I have encountered with articulating my own philosophical approach in English - in particular the Ontic Structural Realism aspect. It just makes intuitive sense to me. I think Fenollosa was onto something when he said there is much the West can learn from understanding how the Chinese structure their language and their ideas.
Quoting T Clark
I agree that this ‘good/bad’ sense of expectation is a key point here. I think the fact that j?ng means both ‘to frighten’ and ‘to startle’ refers to a quality of relating to the unexpected that is neither positive nor negative. For me, this difference between fear and surprise relates back to affect, and Barrett’s theory that we predict our relation to the world in terms of valence (positive/negative) and arousal (high/low), and continually adjust our body’s energy distribution (in terms of attention and effort) accordingly. I’m not convinced that we’re able to not expect anything, but I think we can be aware of how affect influences our expectations, and remain sceptical of its positive/negative pull, at least.
Quoting T Clark
I think this is only in relation to the quality of expectation. To say that hope is the same thing as fear seems to me an oversimplification. Sure, if you ignore, isolate or exclude expectations either way, then there would seem to be no difference between success and failure. But in doing that you’re removing the ‘body’, the main part of a living existence. Have you ever tried to not have any expectations? Your brain is still generating predictions and distributing energies accordingly - you’re simply refusing to participate in the decision-making process.
So I don’t think it’s that there’s nothing there. Expectation is there - it’s happening. We can let affect (desire) call the shots and entirely ignore both our existing expectations and anything unexpected, or we can relate to the unexpected as neither good nor bad, but simply as unexpected, and find a way to learn from it, despite how we may be affected by it.
Yes, it seems most translations of this second line in the verse repeat the term ‘favour’ from the first line, but they’re actually two different characters, as are the notions of humility (disgrace) and suffering. Lao Tzu is always keen to repeat characters for effect, so when he uses different characters, I’d have to assume he’s referring to different ideas.
I guess I’m always open to the possibility, however remote, that none of the current translations are accurate. In hermeneutics, I’ve found that returning to the source language with fresh eyes can be enlightening.
Quoting T Clark
In my view, courage is always needed. That’s because we’re human - and so we’ll never really be free from affect (desire/fear). I think that’s the difference between sages and ascetics, to be honest. Bravery is something else entirely, I think. “Courage doesn't always roar. Sometimes courage is the little voice at the end of the day that says I'll try again tomorrow.” (Mary Anne Radmacher)
Unfortunately, I don't have Ivanhoe's book. I understand that there is an Introduction and an Appendix explaining the process of translation from Chinese. Perhaps a look there will help understanding.
Here is the response from Saige:
[i]There is some overlap between the terms apprehension and fear, but to be apprehensive is to be on guard, to be aware of what may follow from being favored or no longer favored. Being cautious and being afraid are not the same. What the translations and commentaries do not consider is that favor brings jealousy and resentment. Note the line:
"To receive favor is to be in the position of a subordinate."
Those who wish to find favor from their superiors may attempt to disgrace you, lie about you, do whatever they can so that you are no longer seen in a favorable light. The sage avoids the spotlight, avoids being a target, avoids having what can be taken away.[/i]
---------
I have been listening to what @Possibility has been saying about translating from Chinese.
I agree it is important to return to the roots.
I searched for two things:
1. A Chinese equivalent of this place, TPF where there is a similar thread on the TTC.
No luck. There will be something out there, somewhere.
2. How Chinese philosophy is translated.
I found this:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chinese-translate-interpret/
Section 1 The Classical Chinese Language: What, Where and Why does it convey what it conveys.
From 1.2 Syntax
Quoting SEP article by Henry Rosemount Jr.
From 1.3 On the Semantics of Chinese Characters
Quoting As above
The article then goes on to discuss the opening line of Chapter 1 of TTC, including the syntax and semantics - followed by 6 translations:
Quoting As above
This is what stood out for me:
Most Chinese characters can serve equally as both nouns and verbs, and modifiers too (adjectives and adverbs); apart from context no graph has a unique grammatical function.
:smile:
You know very well the source.
If you want to cite Saige, then:
[ Saige, 2021, c/o Amity, https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/10427/my-favorite-verses-in-the-tao-te-ching ]
Saige does not wish to be linked to anyone else but me, myself, I.
Quoting T Clark
Flat out wrong. Even within the West and East what is being described differs.
Quoting T Clark
From Saige:
[i]I think the distinction between body and self and which is the better translation leads to confusion if we import our notions of them. The first is that they are two different things, like body and soul. My body is not something other than me. My self is not something other than me.
Ivanhoe does not say "See your body as the world" or "See your self as the world." He says "revere" and "as if".[/i]
Quoting T Clark
Even if you see through an illusion, you still need the body and mind to enable this.
Saige: Just as I suspected! Where does the text say this is an illusion? What does the text say about the self after the death of the body?
Possibility:
Quoting Possibility
When the ideas are understood, the words are forgotten.
Where can I find a man who has forgotten their words?
I would like talk with him. [/i]
The guardian and the wiser. Lao-Tzu and Tu-Fu.
Lao-Tzu didn’t want to speak but Tu-Fu was asking many question to him.
And a horse has no udders,
And a cow can't whinny,
up is down,
And sideways is straight ahead
Ah, Kung Fu Grasshopper :sparkle:
“Tie two birds together, and even though they have four wings they cannot fly." – The Blind Man.
I had never heard of Tu-Fu before this. I'm curious.
Would you like to say more about why you posted this ? Where and How do you know about the interaction between Lao-Tzu and Tu-Fu ? In relation to the discussion...?
Awesome! :up:
It depends a lot of the Tao-Te-Kimg version all of us have. Mine is from a Spanish version of 1983 that was also translated by R.P. Wiegner in 1913.
Before the book starts, there is a brief story about how supposedly Tao was written. I going to explain it to you:
Tu-Fu was a solider in the frontier of Kuang-Shi. When he saw Lao-Tzu approaching to him he made him stop close to the guardian and said: I will not give you pass in the frontier if you don’t give me part of your wisdom
Then, Lao-Tzu, wrote a book of 80 poems. Thus, the Tao Te King. He said to the guardian that this book is to be understood during the process of life. It flows like the water.
I don’t know if this is true or it is just was a metaphor of the purpose/nature of Tao itself.
Hola y Gracias ! :cool:
Quoting Laozi (SEP)
De nada! Un gran saludo :cool:
Interesting this part of the story. I never known it until today. Thanks for sharing it.
Agreed.
Quoting Possibility
I've never heard the term "ontic structural realism" before. I looked it up. Are you saying that the fact that Chinese words can act as any part of speech helps you break down artificial boundaries in our concepts? If not...
Quoting Possibility
I'm reading Barrett's book and I like it a lot. Thanks for the reference. By "expect" in this context, are you talking about the mind's automatic filling in the blanks in incomplete perceptions that Barrett talks about? If so, I think that's a completely different phenomenon than we're talking about here. I think any intimation of "expectation" is a more common everyday use of the word, i.e. we are anticipating what will come next. We are living in the future rather than the present.
Quoting Possibility
I think we come back to a big difference between your way of seeing the TTC and mine. I think it's about the experience of the Tao. Hope and fear feel the same. We process them the same.
Quoting Possibility
I think you are using "expectation" in the sense that Barrett means it and not how Lao Tzu would and I do. So, yes I have tried and succeeded to not have expectations in the everyday sense of the word. It's hard to do unless I'm really paying attention.
Quoting Possibility
Different translations seem to differ on whether fear or surprise is a bad thing or just a thing. I went back and looked at several different translations of Verse 13. I looked at this one by Thomas Cleary, which I hadn't looked at before. It really lays things out the way I've been thinking about it. He uses both "alarmed" and "startled."
[i]Favor and disgrace seem alarming; high status greatly afflicts your person.
What are favor and disgrace? Favor is the lower: get it and you're surprised, lose it and you're startled. This means favor and disgrace are alarming.
Why does high status greatly afflict your person? The reason we have a lot of trouble is that we have selves. If we had no selves what troubles would we have?
Therefore those who embody nobility to act for the sake of the world seem to be able to draw the world to them, while those who embody love to act for the sake of the world seem to be worthy of the trust of the world.[/i]
But shen doesn’t distinguish between self and body, anymore than jing distinguishes between fear and surprise. We can’t expect a 1:1 translation here. If you google translate ‘body’ to Chinese, you get shen ti, where both characters individually translate back to ‘body’. Ti refers to the quality of substance, while shen refers to the quality of a main part. A number of other characters also translate to ‘body’, each referring to different qualities such as health, form, machine, group, etc.
It’s the character of wú that lends the quality of introspection, leading to an interpretation of my existence as ‘self’, or my main part as ‘body’, when the three together refer to the main part of my existence - whatever I perceive or judge that to be.
Quoting T Clark
Really? Considering that the main topic is the Tao? I do understand that these ‘lofty’ ideas may not be expected from an ancient text, but the versatility of the Chinese characters lend themselves to both lofty and run-of-the-mill interpretations, depending on your focus and awareness. The timeless applicability of the TTC comes from this structure of the language around the quality of ideas rather than consolidated concepts. A limited or comprehensive knowledge of the body is concealed in the English word ‘body’, but not in the Chinese character of shen. It refers only to a particular quality of our experience, which isn’t bound by time or knowledge.
Quoting T Clark
I’m not sure I would trust a leader who claims to have no hope or fear - someone like Trump comes to mind...but I do get the notion of relating to honour and misfortune as if our own hopes and fears were irrelevant. I think we are more willing to entrust our lives to someone who leads by serving, than someone who leads by nobility.
Oh, no - I'm falling way behind. I'll catch up.
Yes - not just this versatility, but the entire structure of the language.
I'll take a look and see if anything interesting pops out.
Quoting Amity
I don't focus on the Chinese language like @Possibility does. I don't have the tools. I put myself in the hands of the translators and figure, if I read several, I'll figure things out.
Quoting Amity
This thread has made me think I might need to spend more time with the Chinese language. At the same time, I think second guessing other translators with our limited understanding will just increase the cacophony of meanings.
As I've said, I don't have the wherewithal to do a linguistic analysis, although I think your input in that regard is interesting and relevant. I just try to read several verses and glean my understanding from the multiplicity of voices. That all gets filtered through my personal understanding and experience. After all that, I just don't get that Lao Tzu is writing about the nobility of suffering.
Quoting Possibility
Courage, whether it roars or whispers, is not needed if fear is discarded.
Thanks :smile:
Quoting T Clark
I am sticking with Ivanhoe for the most part.
I feel comfortable reading his clear, concise writing which retains the poetry and imagery and what I see as the sense of the Tao. He also has a good background in both philosophy (Western and Chinese) and language.
But what do I know *shrugs*
From wiki: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_J._Ivanhoe
The SEP article gave me a deeper appreciation of the many years of study undertaken by translators/interpreters.
Truly awesome.
Are you saying that you are Saige? If so, the fact that you speak with two different voices is confusing.
Quoting Amity
Flat out wrong = I don't understand what you're saying.
Quoting Amity
Are you saying I need the illusion to see through the illusion?
Quoting Amity
Addis and Lombardo say "The self embodies distress. No self, No distress." Illusion is my word.
The Tao is the most down-home, everyday, run of the mill, no big deal of all. You'll find that several places where the Tao is referred to as low or behind. This is from Chen's Verse 8:
[i]Water is good in benefiting (li) all beings,
Without contending (cheng) with any.
Situated in places shunned (o) by many others,
Thereby it is near (chi) Tao.[/i]
Quoting Possibility
I see hope and fear as keeping us from seeing things as they really are. To feel fear or hope, we have to try to see into the future rather than acting spontaneously, wu wei.
I’ve looked through several verses looking for instances of “heaven” and “earth.” In all but one verse, “earth” is always found with “heaven,” although “heaven” is often found by itself. The last instance of “heaven and earth” is in Verse 39. Verse 38 is considered the first Verse of the second section of the TTC. The second section deals with “Te,” sometimes translated as “virtue.” I don’t know if that is significant or not. I’ve also included text from “The Great One Gives Birth to the Water” which is a document often associated with the TTC.
I don't really have anything to say about these texts. I just wanted to put them down so I can soak in them for a while.
From “The Great One Gives Birth to the Water”
[i]{The Great One} gave birth to Water. Water returned to assist (A) {The Great One}, [and] by means of this the Heavens were completed/manifested. The Heavens returned to assist {The Great One}, [and] by means of this the Earth was completed. The Heavens and Earth [returned to assist each other] [and] by means of this the Spirits and Luminaries were completed. The Spirits and Luminaries returned to assist each other, [and] by means of this Yin and Yang were completed. Yin and Yang returned to assist each other, [and] by means of this the Four Seasons were completed. The Four Seasons returned to assist each other (E), [and] by means of this Cold and Hot (F) were completed. Cold and Hot returned to assist each other, [and] by means of this Wet and Dry (G) were completed. Wet and Dry returned to assist each other, completing the Yearly Cycle (H) and that‘s all….
…[What is] below [is] soil, but [we] call it Earth. [What is] above [is] air, but [we] call it Heaven. [It] takes ?Dao‘ [as] its designation (O). Please may I ask its name? [One who] takes the Dao to engage in affairs, necessarily trusts in its name, Therefore [his] affairs are complete and [his] body [lives] long. [When] the sage‘s engaging in affairs, [he] also necessarily trusts in its name, therefore [his] work/merit is accomplished and [his] body is not harmed/distressed. [Regarding] Heaven and Earth, [their] names and designations stand side by side, therefore [if we] go beyond these areas, [we] cannot think [of something] appropriate [to serve as a name] (Q).[/i]
From Verse 1 – Derek Lin
[i]The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named is not the eternal name
The nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth
The named is the mother of myriad things[/i]
From Verse 7 – Derek Lin
[i]Heaven and earth are everlasting
The reason heaven and earth can last forever
Is that they do not exist for themselves[/i]
From Verse 23 – D.C. Lau
[i]Hence a gusty wind cannot last all morning, and a sudden downpour cannot last all day.
Who is it that produces these? Heaven and earth.
If even heaven and earth cannot go on forever, much less can man.
That is why one follows the way.[/i]
From Verse 25 - Addis and Lombardo
[i]Therefore Tao is great, And heaven, And earth, And humans. Four great things in the world. Aren't humans one of them?
Humans follow earth. Earth follows heaven. Heaven follows Tao. Tao follows its own nature.[/i]
From Verse 39 – Addis and Lombardo
[i]Of old, these attained the One: Heaven attaining the One Became clear. Earth attaining the One Became stable. Spirits attaining the One Became sacred.
Valleys attaining the One Became bountiful. Myriad beings attaining the One Became fertile. Lords and kings attaining the One Purified the world.
If Heaven were not clear It might split. If Earth were not stable It might erupt. If spirits were not sacred They might fade.[/i]
From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP) Article on Laozi (Lao Tzu):
[i]The dominant interpretation in traditional China is that Dao represents the source of the original, undifferentiated, essential qi-energy, the “One,” which in turn produces the yin and yang cosmic forces. While the “lighter,” more rarefied yang energy-stuff rises to form heaven, the “heavier” yin solidifies to become earth. A further “blending” of the two generates a “harmonious” qi-energy that informs human beings…
…The Laozi makes use of the concept of ziran, literally what is “self (zi) so (ran),” to describe the workings of Dao. As an abstract concept, ziran gives no specific information, except to say that Dao is not derived from or “modeled” (fa) after anything (ch. 25). However, since “heaven and earth”—interpreted as nature in most modern studies—are said to be born of Dao and come to be in virtue of their de, the Laozi is in effect saying that the ways of nature reflect the function of Dao…[/i]
Do you really think I haven’t grasped this aspect of the Tao? These ideas I’m referring to are not ‘lofty’ in the sense that they’re unaware of a relation extending throughout all of existence. This is the point I’m trying to make about the Chinese language - when they refer to ‘water’, they’re referring to the idea of a fluid quality, not specifically to H2O or to a river as such. Other characters would refer to the liquid consistency of water, to its diluting, soaking or pouring qualities - and also be translated as ‘water’. I think in philosophy, particularly in understanding the Tao, it’s important to make this distinction between the consolidated thing and the qualitative idea. I don’t think it makes the idea ‘lofty’ - the transcendent quality of ideas such as ‘fluid’ doesn’t raise it above or distinct from ‘water’. The metaphorical sense is inherent in the choice of character.
We keep trying to get a sense of what Lao Tzu would be saying in English. But the idea that Lao Tzu is even a real person is a point of contention. Laozi means ‘old master’, and a similar ambiguity surrounds his living existence as does Jesus and Socrates.
No.
And neither would I find it confusing if someone wrote with different voices e.g. chatty v academic; informal v formal. It is not an either/or. Why would you cage yourself in to a way of being or seeing ?
This is diverting - amusing - but also creating another diversion - a straying from the path.
Quoting T Clark
The statement in question: 'There is only one world. All philosophers are describing the same world.'
You also said elsewhere, I think to @Possibility: 'I think we come back to a big difference between your way of seeing the TTC and mine'.
How can you describe the same thing when you are seeing different things ?
If we can't even see and describe a book with all its different translations the same way, how could we describe the whole world the same way ?
To back track a little:
The fact is you took a one-liner from a fairly substantial post and ran with it, instead of considering or commenting on the main part which would have been more interesting. Perhaps even illuminating.
Also, I haven't looked at the Chapters you missed out. I think Ch 5- 10 ?
It makes me wonder why and what we might have missed. It can't be because they are not your favourites. We spent a lot of time on Ch11 which you said you never liked.
Quoting T Clark
No. I said that you need the body and mind.
Saige cuts in: You need to see that it is not an illusion, otherwise you cannot see anything but the illusion of an illusion.
Quoting T Clark
Saige again: Yes, your word, and one that would need more textual support if you are to claim it is appropriate.
Saige also points out that in your quote from Addis and Lombardo they say:
'the self embodies distress'.
Nice one, Saige :sparkle:
It reinforces my point that the body is still required.
Hope that we can now move on from this...
I don't know if this makes any sense but there seems to be something about paradoxes that I feel maybe important.
Remember how Laozi begins the Tao Te Ching:
Quoting T Clark
This verse, in a way, sets the tone for what the Tao is all about and what's that precisely? Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but take a look at the verse which I said is the only one I remember (quoted above). The last two lines, "up is down" and "sideways is straight ahead" manage to encapsulate the crux or the heart of Taoism as a philosophy dealing exclusively and whole-heartedly in paradoxes.
Now, what about paradoxes makes them so damn important to Taoism? My hunch is, paradoxes vis-à-vis Taoism, are purposed for one specific task - to do an exposè on language itself but the question is what exactly about language is being revealed through paradoxes? To the extent that I'm aware, paradoxes shed light on one very important aspect of language; I don't know the linguistic term for it and if anyone has any information on it I'd be grateful if it's shared with me. Anyway, the "...one very important aspect of language" I'm talking about is...from where I stand...it's Olympic gymnast level flexibility which I suppose translates to arbitrariness.
What do I mean?
Take the paradoxical statement, "up is down" which appears above. Note that "up" and "down" mean entirely different, in fact opposite, states of an object and given these definitions. "up is down" is a bona fide paradox, a frank contradiction. However, suppose I were to assert, I can because of the arbitrariness of language I mentioned earlier, that the word "up" means down. If I did say that then "up is down" is no longer a paradox and is actually quite dull and uninteresting for all Laozi is saying is the tautology, "down is down". The paradox, however, has been resolved, and there is no residual contradiction to worry about.
What does this reveal about language? What about how arbitrary words and the meanings assigned to them are? I could without fear of contradicting myself say that "fire" means water and that "black" means white. Nothing holds me back from doing this and thereby hangs a tale. Taoist paradoxes can be resolved by redefining words like I did with the word "up" in the preceding paragraph.
So what?
The question that pops into my mind is, what exactly do we mean a Laozi paradox has been resolved? The answer is as simple as is profound (at least to me): semantic rather than word congruence. What do I mean? The way I dealt with the paradox of "up is down" above is by redefining "up" as down but make note of the fact that though the meaning has been made to agree (both "up" and "down" mean down), the words are still distinct.
What's intriguing about this rather devious technique of resolving Laozi paradoxes is that it forces us to think about semantics/meanings and what is semantics/meanings but reality itself, that which words are aimed at capturing. In a way then, Laozi paradoxes are designed to make us confront, come face to face with, reality directly by arranging rendezvous with semantics/meanings, get past the confusion of words, language.
Why would you approach the TTC like this ?
It's a bit like searching a Bible Concordance for 'Heaven'.
Quoting T Clark
Why would it not be significant in its own right ?
Are you trying to make connections before we even get there ?
I don't find this helpful. It is another case of chopping up the text and the discussion...
It reminds me of the Kafka discussion: 'A cage went in search of a bird'.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/10031/a-cage-went-in-search-of-a-bird-/p1
@TheMadFool got it spot on with:
Quoting TheMadFool [ emphasis added]
It sounds like you are searching for bits of the TTC (birds) to tie in to your own constraints (cage).
Confusion seems to arise when it doesn't all fit together to suit your way of looking.
So, any disagreement with what is found in the texts you view as a problem with the text and not with your lack of understanding. At least that is how it seems to me. But I am just as likely to be wrong.
Indeed, I do note that:
Quoting T Clark
And others might want to so soak too...so yes, helpful in one way...
Different cages, different birds. Chacun a son gout :cool:
The way we are discussing the TTC is quite disjointed...
Having said that, it has proven to be fascinating and illuminating.
Perhaps a meandering path is just right for us...
Thanks TC et al, for all the hard work, time and energy spent on this :sparkle:
I am glad you expanded on the only verse you remembered.
You have clearly given this a whole lot of thought - and I am only just beginning to appreciate...
This way of looking. Confronting reality like this...
Yes, it is intriguing and important. Thanks :smile:
The things would be opened by themselves.
In movement, like water.
When is quite, like a mirror.
Answers like an echo.[/i]
Beautiful poem from Lao-Tzu to Tu-Fu. The path of virtue
Water and mirror are the key to enter in Taoism thought.
I understand the 'flexibility' aspect but don't see how this translates to 'arbitrariness'.
Not sure how are you using the word 'arbitrariness'. See under Philosophy v Linguistics here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitrariness
Re Philosophy
Re Linguistics
Quoting TheMadFool
Quoting TheMadFool
How do you do this with regard to the TTC ?
I am bewitched, bothered and bewildered :worry:
Help ?
Yes. Can you provide a link to it, please ?
Can you explain how water and mirror are the keys - are they the only way in ?
How do we ‘discard’ fear? By ignoring it? By isolating or excluding it from our reality? How can we understand the Tao without including fear?
This is what we do with the English language: we bind qualitative experience into concepts, and then think we can ‘discard’ the things we don’t like.
An interesting character in Chinese is wei - the one in the line of verse 13 meaning ‘entrust to’ (as distinct from ‘entrust with’). It can also be translated as ‘appoint’, as well as ‘throw away’ or ‘discard’, even ‘actually’ or ‘really’. From an English language perspective we think: how can this one character possibly mean ALL of these things?
The quality of this character wei, as I see it, is a limit on perceived potential. When we appoint someone to a position or task, we limit our perception of their potential to their capacity to perform that task. When we are entrusted to the world, we limit our perceived potential of ourselves to the value that others attribute to us. And when we throw something away or discard it, we limit our perception of its potential to achieve anything at all.
That’s not necessarily a bad thing - it is what it is. In order to intentionally perform any action, we must temporarily limit our perceived potential to act in that situation. This is what affect is: instructions to the organism on how to distribute the limited energy it has available in that moment, based on an interaction between what we expect to happen and an interocepted state of the organism. But what this quality does suggest is that we don’t really discard anything - we just limit our perception of its potential. When we supposedly ‘discard’ fear we just ignore its capacity to affect us. This can be useful as a selective strategy in the short term, but this kind of ignorance can be harmful as an overall perspective.
Sure! I think it is more worthy just put the images (if you do not mind) because it is short the dialogue between Lao-Tzu and Tu-Fu... Sorry is in Spanish (casitilian by the way :joke: )
Also when I said water and mirror are key to understand Taoism is due to the relationship of life flow. It remembers me about Democritus when he explained philosophically the course of the water.
Mirror should be the representation of ourselves, then the water of how the life is going through it. Changing when the years are passing. Probably this is why Lao said Tao Te King is a book that is with us during the life journey...
Anyway, this is just my interpretation.
I put the poem as promised:
Quoting TheMadFool
You haven't exactly answered my question.
Your original verse is from the film 'Circle of Iron', not as you know from the TTC.
I don't see how either the TTC or Zen koans are resolved by using language arbitrarily.
You say you resolved the paradox in the verse by arbitrarily naming 'up' 'down'. You use words.
Then you say that the TTC is not about words. Sure but we need to use words to try and understand the meaning of the TTC as written.
To help me understand, perhaps you could provide an example of the TTC where a paradox is resolved by redefining the language arbitrarily.
The repeated acts of giving birth and the new being "returning to assist" is like knitting or weaving a fabric that permits the multiplicity of the myriad things.
Quoting T Clark
This suggests that the "boundary" of names can only be conceived by presuming a dimension beyond the boundary. Staying near the boundary seems to be the emphasis of Verse 5.
Thanks a lot for trying :brow:
And I can make some of it out...
'El Tao que se puede nombrar no es el verdardero Tao'
And the verse - you translated that yourself, I guess.
I am impressed by anybody who has English as a second or third language exchanging philosophical views here. Really :100:
Quoting javi2541997
Yes. I can see how it would remind you of...em...wasn't it Heraclitus who said that you can't step into the same river twice. Everything moves on and that nothing is at rest.
Changing when the years are passing. And returning to a book after years have passed, just like returning to a song, can bring new insights.
Sometime we don't necessarily want to look into a mirror to see the changes - grey hair and wrinkles. However, with age comes wisdom...apparently...
So, you have returned to the TTC many times ?
English is my second language. Yes I translate by my own everything I write here. Sometimes is difficult because philosophy has a complex vocabulary. Thank you for your consideration :up:
For example, the basic phrase of Aristotle El todo es mayor que la suma de sus partes as an argument of pure logic it makes so hard translate it in English to me.
Using Oxford dictionary could be: a whole is greater than the sum of its parts
Indeed. I find Google Translate quicker but it doesn't always give you the true sense of the words or phrase. It can be quite amusing at times...
The parts don't add up to the whole :wink:
Quoting javi2541997
Si :smile: Y que lo digas. Google tells me that is Spanish for 'you can say that again' - an idiomatic phrase. Does it translate well ?
I understand what you said. Also yes, Google translated it correctly. But I also found this translation: right on.
Translating idiomatics in one language to another is even more difficult than philosophy itself :sweat:
I don't think Lao Tzu would think that the Tao he experiences in ancient China is different than the one we experience here, 2,500 years later and 12,000 miles away. I think Immanuel Kant would think the world he described in the 1700s is the same world as Lao Tzu described and the one we live in today.
Quoting Amity
As I wrote in the OP, I am covering the verses I am most interested in discussing. As I noted, you are welcome to bring up and discuss any verses I leave out. I will be happy to participate in those discussions.
Quoting Amity
I'm comfortable that using the word "illusion" is appropriate.
Quoting Amity
I think this is an issue that will come up again as we go along.
I think we think of Taoism as paradoxical for the same reason we see Quantum Mechanics that way - because they both deal with phenomena we can't talk about with our normal language. In both cases we've gone beyond our everyday human reality.
Quoting TheMadFool
I think paradoxes are important for two reasons - 1) the truth of the Tao is unspeakable. When we try to say things about it, they come out goofy. 2) Maybe on of the things Lao Tzu is trying to achieve is to make people think about things differently than they normally do. He makes them beat their heads against the wall a few times to make them open up their eyes.
Quoting TheMadFool
I'm lost in the discussion about semantics and meaning. I think you're making this too complicated. Lao Tzu writes in paradoxes because there is no way to describe the things he's trying to tell us about.
I find this way of looking at things very useful. I've been in TTC groups where the other members did too. It's also fun. If you don't find it helpful, just skip it.
Quoting Amity
Again, as I said, if you don't find my particular way of looking at things useful, you can skip it.
Quoting Amity
I've been happy with how well we have stayed on the path I envisioned when I started this thread. It doesn't feel disjointed to me at all.
I haven't read much Kant. I remember when I first came across the idea of noumena, which is similar to ding an sich, I thought it seemed similar to the Tao. I looked on the web and actually found a paper that discussed the similarity. It's just another example of why I say that Kant, Lao Tzu, and all the rest of us are all describing the same world.
Quoting TheMadFool
I wouldn't say it the way you have, but I don't think you're wrong.
To oversimplify - I am afraid because I think I am my self, but that's just a story I tell. When I see through the illusion of my self, my story, there's nothing to be afraid about.
Quoting Possibility
We don't discard fear, we see through it. See through the illusion.
I find "The Great One Gives Birth to the Water" perplexing. It seems by its style that it doesn't belong with the rest of the TTC, but in at least one copy found it is included on the same scrolls. It seems much more prosaic, scholarly, less poetic, than the TTC. I do like it because it has the longest "ladder." That's what I call the path downward from the Tao to the 10,000 things. Here's an example from Verse 42 by Mitchell:
[i]The Tao gives birth to One.
One gives birth to Two.
Two gives birth to Three.
Three gives birth to all things.[/i]
So, what is the One, Two, and Three. Everyone seems to have a different idea. Is the Two Heaven and Earth? Yin and Yang? As I said, I like "The Great One" because it gives us some ideas about what the ladder might look like. Although, in reality, it probably makes things more confusing than they were before.
Quoting Valentinus
There's a lot going on with "The Great One." I've only given you a part of it. I don't have a good grasp of how it's supposed to fit in with the TTC.
All creation stories seem to involve recognition of the "boundary" between the "named and unnamed." How they serve as a mirror can be very different. The sequential orders of birth in Verse 42 reminds me of Plato's Timaeus where the creation is presented as a sequence. While filling out the "tribes of mortal beings", the "Creator" says:
I think there is common ground in framing the conditions on our side of the "heavenly gate" as interweaving the mortal with the immortal. I think the difference is that Lao Tzu is learning the lesson through navigating the world as it finds him rather than Plato framing it as a class taught by his ancestors.
I understand how the language is an "artifice" But judging the merits of what is said through it is paradoxical itself. It is not like we have another option that we have been blowing off because we are stubborn people.
Keep reading. These incomplete perceptions are not just static images - that’s just a demonstration that she can orchestrate using a book. I will say that I first read Barrett’s book following Carlo Rovelli’s ‘The Order of Time’, so the notion of the universe consisting of interrelated events rather than objects was the context for my understanding of Barrett’s theory. The entire physical structure of intentional action and consciousness necessitates anticipating what will come next - ‘living in the future rather than the present’.
Quoting T Clark
I do think that hope and fear have a certain experiential quality in common, but I disagree that we always process these experiences the same, or that they feel the same every time. I think we can approach these concepts in such a way that they do appear to feel the same, but only by collapsing our perception of the experience to a single aspect.
So, while it makes sense to say that there is the same quality of expectation in experiences of both hope and fear, those experiences differ markedly in affect (one being pleasant and the other unpleasant), and so we process them differently, and they feel different. Once we acknowledge this, then we can begin to understand the quality of expectation beyond our affected distinction of hope and fear, and also understand affect in relation to our expectations.
Quoting T Clark
What we’re calling ‘expectation’ here, Barrett refers to as prediction. When you do appear to succeed at not having expectations, are you aware of what it is you are paying attention to? And what you are ‘discarding’?
Quoting T Clark
Yes - I think this difference corresponds to whether or not their interpretation is coloured by affect.
Quoting T Clark
I struggle to relate to Cleary’s translation - I don’t think that ‘surprise’ or ‘alarm’ describe qualitatively how it feels to gain favour or to lose it AT ALL. The sentences are logically structured, and the character translations are all quantitatively accounted for - but it’s lacking accuracy in qualitative structure as it relates to experience. That this qualitative aspect seems such an insignificant thing to us is what concerns me.
I don't know how to see the matter through the text as it been given but favor and disgrace are existential.
Yes. It's something I've thought about a lot recently. As I had always seen it, the process by which the Tao is differentiated into the 10,000 things was simple. We, humans, do it by naming things. Three steps - Tao; humans; 10,000 things. It's clear from reading the TTC more thoroughly that it's more complicated than that. From verse 42 it's Tao; One: Two: Three; 10,000. And then there's "The Great One." In that, it goes from Tao to 10,000 things through St. Louis with a stop in Boise. And, as you say, where along the path is the boundary? Where does it become the named world we live in.
Quoting Valentinus
I'm not sure if this is the same thing you meant - In the worlds of Islam, Christianity, Judaism, and Plato's Creator there's a design/builder to take care of figuring out how to put things together. Lao Tzu's world has to do all that for itself. That world has to grow up out of the Tao spontaneously. Wu Wei on a cosmic scale.
I'll keep reading.
Quoting Possibility
As Barrett points out, it can be hard to tell two emotions apart. It's also true that the same emotion may vary from instance to instance. I think what it comes down to is that both hope and fear deal with something happening in the future. You can't act spontaneously, wu wei, if you're not paying attention because you're thinking about the future.
Quoting Possibility
We'll have to come back to this when I've read more.
Quoting Possibility
I don't want to give the impression that it's something I can do on an extended basis. Do you meditate at all? I don't in any formal way, but if I pay attention, I can go to state of mind where I am aware of what is going on inside me with no words. When that happens, fear, expectation, dissolve. I haven't forgotten them and I'm not hiding them, they're just not there. This is a pretty common description of a meditative, now they're calling it "mindful," state.
Quoting Possibility
Cleary isn't normally my favorite. I've found, though, that I'll often find a translation that really works for me from different authors, even those that aren't usually my favorites. That's why I have really enjoyed paying attention to a lot of different translations.
Do you mean that they threaten the basis of our lives? The foundation we stand on? Or something else?
Mitchell Translation
[i]Look, and it can't be seen.
Listen, and it can't be heard.
Reach, and it can't be grasped.
Above, it isn't bright.
Below, it isn't dark.
Seamless, unnamable,
it returns to the realm of nothing.
Form that includes all forms,
image without an image,
subtle, beyond all conception.
Approach it and there is no beginning;
follow it and there is no end.
You can't know it, but you can be it,
at ease in your own life.
Just realize where you come from:
this is the essence of wisdom.[/i]
Chen Translation
[i]What is looked at but not (pu) seen,
Is named the extremely dim (yi).
What is listened to but not heard,
Is named the extremely faint (hsi).
What is grabbed but not caught,
Is named the extremely small (wei).
These three cannot be comprehended,
Thus they blend into one.
As to the one, its coming up is not light,
Its going down is not darkness.
Unceasing, unnameable,
Again it reverts to nothing.
Therefore it is called the formless form,
The image (hsiang) of nothing.
Therefore it is said to be illusive and evasive (hu-huang).
Come toward it one does not see its head,
Follow behind it one does not see its rear.
Holding on to the Tao of old (ku chih tao),
So as to steer in the world of now (chin chih yu).
To be able to know the beginning of old,
It is to know the thread of Tao.[/i]
Chen Commentary
General Comment
[i]This chapter is on fundamental ontology. It captures the dynamism of Tao at the transitional point between being and non-being. What we have here is the via negativa, the language of the mystics. The character u, the not, appears nine times in the chapter. Walter Stace writes: “What mystics say is that a genuine mystical experience is nonsensuous. It is formless, shapeless, colorless, odorless, soundless”.
Detailed Comment
[i]1. As the extremely small, Tao is invisible, inaudible, and intangible. It is also the extremely small and extremely great (ch. 41.3). Either way it is beyond our sensual experience. The existence of Tao cannot be verified. Here we move from the phenomenal world of the many to the hidden Tao as one.
2. Our translation of the first line follows the Ma-wang Tui texts. The beginnings of both versions A and B contain two additional characters, i the (as to the one), not found in other editions. This addition makes for better continuity between (1) and (2). In these lines Tao, as the one further recedes and reveals itself to be nothing or chaos (hu-huang). On the non-being aspect of Tao the Chuang Tzu (ch. 22) muses: Bright Dazzlement asked Nonexistence, “Sir, do you exist or do you not exist?” Unable to obtain any answer, Bright Dazzlement stared intently at the other’s face and form—all was vacuity and blankness. He stared all day but could see nothing, listened but could hear no sound, stretched out his hand but grasped nothing. “Perfect!” exclaimed Bright Dazzlement. “Who can reach such perfection? I can the existence of nonexistence, but not of the nonexistence of nonexistence. Yet this man has reached the stage of the nonexistence of nonexistence. How could I ever reach such perfection!” (Watson: 244.)
3. The “Tao of old” (ku chih tao) in line 3 pairs with “the world of now” (chin chih yu) in line 4. From his philological study Kao Heng determined that yü (being) in the Tao Te Ching has the same meaning as yü (space). Whatever has being occupies space. Thus, chin chih yu, the realm of being at the present moment, is “the world (yu) of now.” If “the world of now” as being means space, “the Tao of old” as non-being (wu) is time. The priority of non-being over being (ch. 40) means the priority of time over space, of dynamism over form. This “Tao of old,” which is the formless form, the image of nothing, giving rise to beings (yu) that have form and occupy space (yü), is none other than the flux of time. This “Tao of old” that informs “the world of now” is what Jean Gebser calls the “Ever-Present[/i][/i]
Ok - seeing through it makes sense. I just get a sense that we’re intellectually accepting these translations because they have a satisfying quantitative or logical structure to them, regardless of whether or not they’re qualitatively accurate. I think we need to be more thorough than that.
Fear is not an illusion, anymore than money or countries are illusions. They are concepts in our social reality, a product of human agreement - this is something that Barrett also covers early in her book. Fear is identified by neural firing patterns as a mental event, in a categorisation method (proposed by Darwin) known as population thinking. Fear as an event has been demonstrated as irreducible to a particular location or set of neurons in the brain, leading to an understanding of degeneracy: a many-to-one relational structure between neurons and the firing patterns that identify as mental events. This many-to-one relational structure is a key understanding between what we perceive as objectively, actually and conceptually real. It makes perfect sense to me as a dimensional relation - objective reality as 3D, actual reality as 4D and conceptual reality as 5D. And I find uncanny parallels between this dimensional or many-to-one structure of reality, and the one described in the TTC - when we ‘see through’ the quantitative consolidation of 10,000 things: concepts, events, objects, shapes, lines and binaries.
An intellectual relation to the TTC is not enough - we can’t just see through affect and from there expect to effortlessly render the Tao in our everyday reality. The process of understanding the Tao includes constructing a reductionist methodology that renders this understanding in how we think, speak, act and generally relate to the world - all of which is necessarily bound by affect. So we need to understand how affect binds us and those around us, and then seek the soft tendons and effortless actions that preserve the knife. I see this as increasing awareness, connection and collaboration.
Barrett gives an analogy of the brain’s interoceptive network as a scientist formulating and testing predictions. I’m adding it here because I think it relates to this idea of constructing our reductionist methodology, and why qualitative accuracy is important in translating the TTC:
This is a common intellectual, even Western, description of ‘mindfulness’. It’s a restructuring of our conceptual reality that consolidates the mind as isolated from the body.
The difference between this and genuine meditation is a sense of being: of the mind as inclusive of the body and its affect, rather than disconnected from it. It’s a much more difficult state to attain - almost impossible from an intellectual standpoint. Taoist meditation practices are designed to help us get out of our own way - to get our brain out of this ‘default mode’ that Barrett talks about, and focused on input as the start of an internal process. The idea is to become more aware of what happens to this input - what the ‘scientist’ does with the incoming data in relation to the hypotheses, so to speak. Meditation faces affect head-on, creating controlled conditions of distributed attention and effort in order to disentangle affect from the incoming data.
In this state, for me it isn’t so much that fear isn’t there, or that expectation dissolves, but that it just isn’t what we think it is. What ‘fear’ consists of still exists as variable qualitative experience - it’s just not a thing in itself.
I see what we're doing, at least what I'm trying to do, differently than that. I'm an intellectual, verbal guy. So there's a natural tendency for me to work with words. That's ok with Lao Tzu, because he has set the TTC up as an obstacle course for over-intellectual people. I see every verse, every translation, every discussion, every commentary as a snapshot of the Tao made up of words. As a cross-section through it. Maybe like a cat scan. These snapshots are full of contradictions, inaccuracies, misunderstandings, language confusion. Once we've taken enough of these cross-sections, even though they are made up of words, we can get a non-verbal, impressionistic feel for what the experience of what the Tao might be like.
So, when I come up with another explanation, question, thought, contemplation, it's not that I believe that it's the answer. It's just another picture for the pile. I like some pictures better than others. And I can use all of your explanations, questions, thoughts, and contemplations as snapshots too. That's the value of doing this as a group. I'm not accepting any of the verses or any of the translations. I'm using them. I focus on the ones that speak to me, but I also take a look at those that don't. That's what I mean when I say we can't know or understand the Tao, but maybe we can experience it. This is fun.
Quoting Possibility
I.e. they are included in the 10,000 things.
Quoting Possibility
Fear, at least as I'm talking about it, and as I think Lao Tzu thought about it, is a mental experience. It's part of the mind. Let's not get into a discussion of mind/brain identity. For me, the mind and the brain are completely different things. The nervous system, the whole body, is a living organ made up of cells. Fear is an experience. We typically use different words to describe them. Now I'm trying to figure out how the things Barrett says fit into this picture. I think maybe the findings of cognitive science have added a new level or organization between mind and brain. Not sure, and I don't want to get deeply into that.
Quoting Possibility
As you might intimate from what I wrote above, I don't agree with this. I don't think there is a reductionist methodology within 10 miles of the TTC.
This is not true for me.
Quoting Possibility
I don't see how this is different from what I described. Actually, I do. Once I become aware of fear and face it contemplatively, the physiological markers that we identify as fear go away. The "variable qualitative experience" of fear is gone.
I see this reflected, too, in your personal preference for ‘self’ instead of ‘body’ in translations of this verse. It seems from what you’re saying here that you subscribe to some form of dualism or idealism, as incongruous as I find this to be with the TTC.
The way I see it, fear is an experience inseparable from ‘mind’ or ‘body’. You seem reluctant to explore this, preferring to see fear as all in the mind. Ideally or potentially, sure, it can be. But any event we manifest includes our relation to these qualitative aspects we consolidate as ‘fear’, whether we can see through the concept or not. When we’re aware of this or anticipate it, then we can deliberately see through it, dissolving ‘fear’ into an unpleasant, arousing feeling in relation to a prediction. I do think that Lao Tzu challenges us to anticipate both pleasant and unpleasant surprises, and in doing so see through both fear and hope.
But I also think Lao Tzu describes our relational structure as dissolving any quantitative distinction between mind and brain. More often than not we’re not paying that much attention introspectively. We should acknowledge, with humility, those times when, in failing to predict accurately, we find ourselves surprisingly affected by our expectations. Despite physiological preparation to fight or flee, we need not act on this, but often we’re left to explain an unconscious response after the fact. How readily do we acknowledge fear as an explanation then - especially if we believe that fear is just a mental experience?
I agree.
@T Clark earlier: I think what it comes down to is that both hope and fear deal with something happening in the future. You can't act spontaneously, wu wei, if you're not paying attention because you're thinking about the future.
I see hope not as an illusion. It underlies the present and is an important motivator.
If you are writing words in a post, this involves hope.
You have a hope that your words might mean something to somebody.
The author of the TTC had a goal.
He hoped that he could achieve this by using words.
Words that could express his thoughts in poetic form.
He hoped that his words might mean something to somebody.
In the act of writing, he was thinking about the future.
He was also paying attention.
Hope is an important part of living. It is a driving force.
'Hope is the thing with feathers' - Emily Dickinson
“Hope” is the thing with feathers -
That perches in the soul -
And sings the tune without the words -
And never stops - at all -
And sweetest - in the Gale - is heard -
And sore must be the storm -
That could abash the little Bird
That kept so many warm -
I’ve heard it in the chillest land -
And on the strangest Sea -
Yet - never - in Extremity,
It asked a crumb - of me.
Well, I must've read a cheap knockoff version of the Tao Te Ching then. Sorry. But for what it's worth a few verses that prove my point that the Tao Te Ching is about paradoxes:
[quote=Tao Te Ching]
The most straight seems curved.[/quote]
[quote=Tao Te Ching]The easy seems hard[/quote]
[quote=Tao Te Ching]the path forward seems like retreat[/quote]
Yes, I'm using words to express my views on the Tao Te Ching but that can't be helped. How do you want me to communicate my understanding of the Tao without using a system of communication (language)?
That said, the following verse seems apposite,
[quote=Tao Te Ching]Those who speak don't know and those who know don't speak[/quote]
That "those who speak don't know and those who know don't speak" is an explicit statement on the nature of the Tao as something beyond language and in order to give eager enthusiasts of Taoism a feel for that Laozi resorts to paradoxes because,
1. To understand paradoxes, we have get down to the level of semantics - what the words mean - and semantics is, if you really look at it, reality itself, the many ways it presents itself to us. Words are there only as labels for aspects of reality, be it an object, state, or phenomenon. Thus, paradoxes serve the important function of forcing us to think about reality itself.
2. A method to resolve paradoxes is to play with words as I demonstrated in my previous post. Take the verse, "the most straight is curved" which is a paradox given straight and curved are opposites i.e. one can't be the other as the verse claims. However, if I were to say "straight"' means curved, then the contradiction's resolved.
Note how I tackled the problem: I didn't do anything to the words themselves but I tinkered around with the semantics which I already informed you is reality as it is. This technique of resolving contradictions is a cheap trick, yes, but only if resolving paradoxical contradictions were the aim; the paradoxes in the Tao Te Ching are not meant to be resolved at all. Au contraire, they're meant to put pressure on the mind to look past the words and go into semantics which, as I explained earlier, is reality itself, beyond words.
[quote=Laozi]Those who speak don't know and those who know don't speak[/quote]
[quote=Tao Te Ching]The Tao that can be named is not the Eternal Tao[/quote]
No, I'm not talking about dualism. I'm talking about different levels of organization. Biology is not chemistry. Psychology is not anatomy. When I talk about "mind," I talk about fear, thought, sight, experience. When I talk about "body," I talk about neurons, brain, stomach, blood. Mind is not self. Mind can be our experience of our bodies.
Quoting Possibility
It's not fair (stomps feet). I tell you I don't see things the way you do and you say I'm "reluctant to explore."
Quoting Possibility
I don't think Lao Tzu ever thought in those terms, even beyond differences in language. I don't see how the process you describe is reflected anywhere in the TTC. That's not saying the description you're giving is wrong, it's just not what the TTC is talking to me about. I understand you see things differently.
And in your defense - since the beginning of our discussions, I've tried to pay attention to how fear and other emotions play out as experience to see if Barrett's way of seeing things is useful. I've always been aware that fear expresses itself differently at different times. I'm trying to watch that better.
I don't agree with this and I don't think Lao Tzu would either. Don't you like how I can authoritatively put words into Lao Tzu's mouth.
I agree.
Quoting TheMadFool
I'm ok with this, as long as, when you say "reality" you mean "the 10,000 things" and not "the Tao."
Quoting TheMadFool
I think it's more than that. It looks like your quote comes from Verse 45, so we'll get back to it. We could skip directly to that verse, but some don't like my habit of jumping around.
To be frank, the interpretation of Taoism as presented in my last few posts is definitely not the final word on the subject. It's just one of possibly hundreds and thousands of ways of understanding the cryptic Laozi. It made sense to me for I don't see a purpose in being more obscure than is necessary, a principle Laozi must have some familiarity with. That being the case the paradoxes in Taoism must be absolutely necessary. Therefore, if we're to apprehend Laozi's message, assuming he even had one, the obvious place to start is the nature of paradoxes and how they relates to language and such. I offered my own personal perspective in that context, that's all. If you have doubts as to whether this is the correct way to understand Taoism, I have no real reason to counter that.
That out of the way, what do you think "the 10,000 things" means? For my money, the exact figure of 10,000 is not as important as what it suggests viz. multiplicity, plurarlity, or what Laozi is really worried about viz. division that then becomes the cause of strife, chaos, and, of course the main antagonist, suffering.
Laozi wants us to see past differences, the very foundation of all division, "the 10,000 things", and try and grasp what I can only refer to as the unity which is the Tao. In order to do that Laozi resorts to paradoxes, contradictions, because these are the extremes of division; we could make the case that grey is black or that grey is white but to say black is white, as the Tao Te Ching's many paradoxes eventually reduce to, is to defy all reason.
We need to pay close attention to "...to defy all reason..." the words that appear at the end of the last sentence in the paragraph above because Laozi isn't proposing that we should now give up on logic and reason, embrace irrationality. Quite the "opposite", he wants us to realize that, to continue with my example of black and white, though black isn't white, they're opposites, they share a certain characteristic viz. they're extremes and in that sense, black and white are same - they are both at the very ends of a spectrum that extends gradually from one to the other. Isn't that what yin-yang is about? The eternal dance of opposites, the masculine dominating, the feminine yielding, and our job, according to Laozi, is not, as I thought earlier, to be some kind of harmonizing force, heroically bringing balance to the world but simply to yield willingly and to the best of our ability to the yin and the yang as both converge on us as both do on each and every one of us.
Quoting T Clark
:up:
You must have noticed that each of the people in this discussion have different ideas about what the Tao Te Ching means. We all speak with different words. You say "paradox." @Possibility says "affect." I say "experience." These are the ideas we use to open up what TTC means. I think that the words we use have special meaning to us that provides a key. I've noticed in your other posts that paradoxes mean a lot to you, so the key for you is to look at the paradoxes. You seem to have gained a lot of confidence since this thread started.
Quoting TheMadFool
Some translations say "10,000 things." Some say the "multiplicity of beings." I have a personal affection for 10,000 things. You're right, it's not really 10,000, it's the ancient Chinese version of a bajillion.
Quoting TheMadFool
Lao Tzu doesn't find fault with the 10,000 things. He acknowledges that they are a manifestation of the Tao. The fact that they are different, but are also aspects of the same thing he calls the "mystery."
Quoting TheMadFool
The things Lao Tzu writes about are not rational or irrational. They're non-rational. I'm not sure what his thoughts on logic would be.
Quoting TheMadFool
I'm not sure what Lao Tzu thought our job is, if he thought about that at all.
This verse is a watershed of different views. Are the things being named as awkwardly related to each other as the problem of talking about them? Or is there an order that is consistent to itself as how things come about that we only understand poorly through deficient means?
The answer or problems toward answering that question tempers the element of Mysticism that has been represented in so many different ways, here, and in the academic commentary.
Put another way, the strong language about how one set of conditions leads to another points to one kind of observation. The ground where we make comparisons points to something else.
Except you do think that Lao Tzu wrote the TTC for a specific communicative purpose, and I think you’d agree that the text uses a particular language, and employs a particular style and structure in itself. That a reductionist methodology, right there - a way of rendering an understanding of the Tao in a relational structure of strokes on a page. Like the choices an artist makes to render a 4D experience of light and movement in 2D.
This is where the TTC in its Chinese character format shines. Each character signifies a relational quality rather than a concept, retaining this same quality regardless of where or how it’s positioned in the text or in our experience. There’s an honesty to this that makes the language ideal for piecing together what we experience qualitatively, but don’t yet understand. Lao Tzu painted the human experience with relational qualities that flowed in patterns he was aware of, connected to and collaborating with - regardless of whether or not he understood them as such. These included some that modern readers now understand much better than Lao Tzu ever did, as well as some that the reader ignores, isolates and excludes. The flexibility of this format makes the theory of ‘the Laozi’ as a culturally compiled text of wisdom, rather than a single person’s understanding, plausible. Where the TTC makes sense to us, the language seems to hum and resonate within us. And where it doesn’t, there are experiences to which we’ve yet to relate, and koans to meditate on.
When it’s translated into English, though, these relational qualities cease to flow, and we struggle to distinguish between possible gaps in our own awareness and that of the translation. The structure of the English language insists that biology is not chemistry and psychology is not anatomy - that each ‘level of organisation’ must be spoken about in a different way, using different words. But the qualities of experience don’t change between these levels - only our relation to them changes. Many relational, qualitative structures of chemistry are echoed in biology, and there are patterns of qualitative flow that can be found at every level of organisation. Expectation or prediction, for instance, looks like DNA at a biological level.
Each attempted translation of the TTC proposes an alternative reductionist methodology, a set of hypotheses to be tested by relating to experience, life and objective reality. We’re not testing what is written, therefore, but our own relation to it.
I don’t expect you to see things the way I do - only to explore its potential from your own perspective, to ask yourself why you don’t see fear in the body as well as the mind, how your perspective might change if you did, and if that’s such a bad thing...
I don’t have much to argue over with this translation at all, nor with Chen’s detailed comments. I can see why you use this version - its descriptions of the Tao itself seem quite clear to me. It reminds me of qualitative descriptions in quantum field theory.
My own understanding of the Tao is this: there exists, quite unnecessarily, a structure of qualitative relation which in totality cancels itself out, in plurality ignores, isolates, and excludes, and in unity increases awareness, connection and collaboration.
I suppose my approach to the Tao Te Ching is heavily influenced by my fascination with detective fictions like Sherlock Holmes and Hercule Poirot - I look at everything, at least try to, as a mystery that needs a solving. I tried to piece together the puzzle that the Tao Te Ching is into a coherent story and what came out of that is what I put on the table. Perhaps it wasn't as convincing as I had initially thought.
This is where I sign off...
Good luck!
There is no need to resort to cheap and cheeky tricks. Did you really think that I required proof of the existence of paradoxes in the TTC ? I know you didn't - you are a careful reader and writer.
I was going to ignore this response. However, you raise good points and perhaps I hang around to clarify things more for myself and any others. Thanks for a valuable contribution.
Quoting TheMadFool
Yes and more.
From: https://literarydevices.net/paradox/
[ my emphases]
Quoting TheMadFool
Quoting TheMadFool
[my emphasis]
Yes. Paradoxes aren't simply about language - changing the meaning of words. Some paradoxes can be resolved others cannot or are not meant to be.
Reading the TTC with all its paradoxes seems to turn it into a mere set of puzzles to be resolved. We need to read carefully before we can even begin to decipher the meaning. That much is obvious.
However, it is not just a set of puzzles to solve...
'The whole is greater than the sum of its parts', as someone once said.
Reading is an experience which each person has.
It is fascinating to see how each participant here reads and makes sense of the book.
As you say, 'the reality itself, beyond words'.
Further careful thought and reflection required.
Yes - I think this verse is the beginning of a new tack. First of all, these are aspects of reality that elude us in some way. Perhaps we can look at them this way:
What draws our sensory attention, but cannot be seen in itself, we call destructive. Energy is like this. So is time, the weather, gravity, erosion, etc.
What attracts our desire to learn, but doesn’t offer a clear set of instructions, we call hope. Potentiality is like this. So is peace, knowledge, success, morality, and the path of a quantum particle.
And what attracts our effort to relate, but cannot be grasped, we call abstruse. Truth is like this. So is objectivity, meaning, the ‘God particle’, etc
For me, these three correspond to four, five and six-dimensional qualitative structures, but this is probably not what Lao Tzu saw. What he did see was that, unable to examine these aspects closely as such, we tend to confuse them all as one. This doesn’t help. The blended confusion fails to sparkle at best; at worst, we can’t just ignore it. We can’t stop it or name it, and it appears to be nothing at all - the uncaused cause, unmoved mover, etc.
Lao Tzu’s solution seems to be to examine our history of relation to the Tao, and the very next verse begins with a description of the old masters.
If I am one of the 'some', then you can and will do whatever you like. It's your thread.
Re: the thread. You disagreed with me re its disjointed nature. Again, only quoting part of my post. Did you not appreciate my thoughts about a meandering path ?
Quoting Amity
Quoting T Clark
The way you envisioned as per OP:
Quoting T Clark
The thread grew from these roots and branched out a bit more.
I consider that to be a good thing.
However, sometimes off-shoots, like this, just get in the way...
They need to be cut back, reduced, so that the tree can grow to its full potential.
[ I had intended to focus only on the verses. However, I needed to get this out of the way.
There will be no more of it ]
I do agree that paradoxes are an important aspect of the TTC, but I think those you offer as examples demonstrate what are only apparent paradoxes - as illustrated by the word ‘seem’. As an analogy, black is grey and white is grey, which seems to imply that black is white. The challenge is to stop looking at the concepts, and instead examine how we relate to the qualities of experience expressed. From our discussion on verse 2:
Quoting Possibility
'Just you' is a welcome part of the reality.
Quoting TheMadFool
I don't think you are alone there.
We all seem to have this need to seek and find a solution to the puzzle that is life. Life is the biggest mystery of all, don't you think ?
Quoting TheMadFool
:sad:
Go if you must. But I wish you wouldn't.
That is exactly what I was going to do. Leave.
However, for me, this is not about convincing others of a particular approach or understanding.
It is simply sharing thoughts as we read. Not so simply.
I appreciate disagreements as much as agreements.
As long as there are reasons or a thoughtful follow-up, it helps progress the discussion better than a quick, dismissive response.
As you say: 'About what Laozi really wanted to share regarding reality and our place in it.'
Still a work in progress. We need you and all the sharp knives on the table :cool:
Funny, I don't see the relevance but that's probably just me.
Quoting Amity
How might I do that? Any ideas?
Quoting Amity
No. Why?
Quoting Amity
Anytime although I don't see myself as that.
I don't think you need help with that one.
I see you'll soon be celebrating TPF membership of 5yrs.
Congrats :party:
Interesting way to look at them. Will have to read and reflect...
Quoting Possibility
Excerpts from the Ivanhoe translation:
Notes:
32. Returning to an ideal past state is a common theme in the text.
For other examples see chapters 16, 25, 28, 30 and 52.
Three-quarters of that time was spent in an oppressive haze of confusion. Believe me, I need all the help I can get. Thanks though and felicitations to you too :party:
:rofl:
yí: non-Han people, esp. to the East of China; barbarians; to wipe out; to exterminate; to tear down; to raze.
x?: to hope; to admire;
w?i: tiny; miniature; slightly; profound; abtruse; to decline; one millionth part of; micro-;
The first two are those whose translation attempts most baffle me. Where do we get ‘dim’, ‘minute’, ‘colourless’ or ‘equable’ from the direct translation above? Where does one get ‘rarified’, ‘faint’, ‘soundless’ or ‘inaudible’ out of ‘to hope; to admire’? There seems to be a liberty taken with these translations, which to me demonstrates a misunderstanding of the idea Lao Tzu was trying to convey with this character. It took me a while to make the connections between these ideas that allowed it all to flow without being forced.
I know we like to go with a simple 1:1 translation, but this doesn’t always work. Qualitative experience is a many-to-one relation. There is more to what is ‘looked for without being seen’ than simply being practically invisible - what is it about ‘invisible things’ that inspire us to call them ‘destructive’? What is it about ‘to listen/obey’ without ‘to hear/news/well-known/reputation’ that leads us to dismiss something as merely ‘hope’?
The confusion with the third aspect came from the common translation of bo as ‘to seize’.
bó: to fight; to combat; to seize; (of heart) to beat;
What does fighting, seizing and the heart beating have in common that fails to grasp, and in doing so render something microscopic, profound or difficult to understand (depending on your perspective)?
This just gives you an idea of my process...
Thanks again for all your help. It is good to see the process of thinking involved.
I don't have time now but will read later...
When you first started using the language you use to discuss the TTC, I found it....well, I thought it distracted from the discussion. Since then, I've come to enjoy the kinds of things you talk about. Evidence that I take your arguments seriously - 1) I bought and am reading, slowly, Barrett's book 2) As I discussed in an earlier post, I'm trying to include some of the information about how emotions play out when I think about the experience I am trying to understand. All that being said, your way of understanding the Tao is not my way.
Did Lao Tzu write the TTC for a specific purpose? This is from Addis and Lombardo, Verse 63.
[i]Act without acting. Serve without serving. Taste without tasting....
Therefore the Sage Never attempts great things and so accomplishes them.[/i]
So, I guess, no... Lao Tzu didn't have a purpose in writing the TTC. I think Lao Tzu meant what he said and said what he meant.
Quoting Possibility
It strikes me as ironic that you discuss the TTC using unfamiliar technical language and then find fault with me for using everyday English. As I said, I find you approach interesting, but it's not mine. The same goes for your linguistic discussion. Another thing you and @Amity have convinced me of is that I need to spend some time with the Chinese language. Even so, I am comfortable putting myself in the hands of the many people who have translated the TTC.
Quoting Possibility
I don't understand what you're trying to say. As I said in an earlier post - I take an impressionistic approach to the TTC. I wonder how different that is from what you are talking about.
I think I've shown that I'm paying attention to what you say and trying to fit it into my way of seeing things. Can you say the same about what I've written?
[i]Therefore it is called the formless form,
The image (hsiang) of nothing.
Therefore it is said to be illusive and evasive (hu-huang).
Come toward it one does not see its head,[/i]
I'm going to take this verse as an endorsement of the approach to the TTC I've been discussing over the past few posts. Again, I see the TTC as an impressionistic collage of ideas from lots of different translators, commentators, and people in this and other discussions. That started out as a little joke, but I really do think that is something like what Lao Tzu is trying to say.
It's vague. It's confusing. It's hard to see, understand. It's small. Don't look directly at it. See it out of your peripheral vision.
Quoting Possibility
I think your map differs from Lao Tzu's in that you are locating the "ineffable" as an ingredient in the experience of living amongst the ten thousand things where Lao Tzu is pointing outside to something we will never experience. The statement is made that the same agency is active on both sides. The "darkness" of the "xuán" in Verse 1 is asking how one can observe an equality like this. The "unmoved mover" is said to be on the job 24/7 on our side of the Heavenly Gate.
I have no objection to this comparison, as long as it is clear that whatever connection there is between Taoism and QM is completely metaphorical. Some people - Fritjof Capra, I'm talking to you - get that mixed up.
I think you have contributed in a very useful way to this discussion. Sorry you're leaving.
Your comments about the thread being disjointed were among those I was considering when I wrote that. I have thought about that more. I do believe that my approach is a reasonable one. It reflects my understanding that our primary relationship with the TTC is the experience not understanding.
Quoting Amity
It definitely is a meandering path. The TTC itself is a meandering path. I think that is reflected in the way the discussion is running. That is my intent.
Quoting Amity
I don't agree.
Does this have to do with the fact that we have been barking at each other the last couple of pages? I would be sorry to see you leave. Your thoughts have contributed to our movement down the path we are on. I understand you are uncomfortable with the way the thread is organized, but this really is the discussion I had envisioned from the beginning.
Addis and Lombardo
[i]Attain complete emptiness, Hold fast to stillness.
The ten thousand things stir about; I only watch for their going back. Things grow and grow, But each goes back to its root.
Going back to the root is stillness. This means returning to what is. Returning to what is Means going back to the ordinary.
Understanding the ordinary: Enlightenment. Not understanding the ordinary: Blindness creates evil. Understanding the ordinary: Mind opens. Mind opening leads to compassion, Compassion to nobility, Nobility to heavenliness, Heavenliness to Tao.
Tao endures. Your body dies. There is no danger.[/i]
Derek Lin
[i]Attain the ultimate emptiness
Hold on to the truest tranquility
The myriad things are all active
I therefore watch their return
Everything flourishes; each returns to its root
Returning to the root is called tranquility
Tranquility is called returning to one's nature
Returning to one's nature is called constancy
Knowing constancy is called clarity
Not knowing constancy, one recklessly causes trouble
Knowing constancy is acceptance
Acceptance is impartiality
Impartiality is sovereign
Sovereign is heaven
Heaven is Tao
Tao is eternal
The self is no more, without danger[/i]
Heshang Gong Commentary
[i]????????????????????????
“Arrive at supreme emptiness”
Become a man of Dao. Give up strong emotions and discard desires. Then the five internal organs will be clear and tranquil, arriving at supreme emptiness.
????????????
“Embrace deep silence”
Hold onto clarity and tranquility until it is deep and substantial.
????????????????
“Myriad creatures arise together”
Arise, here, means they are born. The myriad creatures are born side by side.
????????????????????????
????
“I thereby observe them returning”
Lao Zi is saying “I watch and observe the myriad creatures, and there is not one which does not return to the root foundation.” People should consider the heaviness of the foundation.
??????????????
“So many things blossoming”
Blossoming refers to abundant flowers and leaves.
????????????????????????
“And each returns back to its roots”
There is not one of the myriad things which does not dry out and fall. Each returns back to the root, and then many more are born.
???????????????????????????
“Returning to the roots is called silence”
Silence is another word for the root. The root is peaceful and still, soft and pliant. Modestly and humbly, it remains below. Thus, it does not return to death.
?????????????????????
“This means returning to one’s destiny-life-force (ming)”
Lao Zi is saying that peace and stillness are the correct way to return to pure nature (xing) and the destiny-life-force (ming). Then one will not die.
???????????????????
“Returning to one’s destiny-life-force is called eternality”
By returning (to) the destiny-life-force, one will not die but will follow Dao eternally.
?????????????????
“Understanding eternality is called enlightenment”
Knowing how to follow Dao at all times is to be enlightened.
??????????????????????????????
“Oblivious to eternality, one is reckless, and author of their own misfortune”
Not knowing how to follow Dao at all times, people recklessly work on developing deceptive skills. As a result, they lose spiritual intelligence. Disaster then befalls them.
????????????????????????
“Know how to embrace eternality”
Know how to follow Dao at all times. Leave strong emotions and forget desires. Then there will be nothing which is not wrapped in this embrace.
?????????????????????
“This embrace shows the way of impartiality”[55]
When there is nothing which is not wrapped in this embrace, there is impartiality, uprightness, and
unselfishness. No wickedness can obstruct it.
??????????????????????????????????
“The way of impartiality shows the way of a king”
Impartial, honourable, and unselfish, one can become king of all under Heaven. By governing and aligning the body, form is unified. Countless spiritual lights then assemble in the body.
?????????????????
“The way of a king shows the way of Heaven”
Being a king, here, means that Virtue will gather spiritual lights and take you through the Heavens.
????????????????
“The way of Heaven shows the way of Dao”
When Virtue takes you through the Heavens, you follow Dao and become united as one with it.
??????????????
“The way of Dao shows the way of longevity”
Following Dao and becoming united with it, one can endure indefinitely.
??????????????????????????????????????????
“And for the body to be without peril”
If one can follow the way of impartiality and kings, they can travel through Heaven and unite with Dao. These four things prepare one for Dao and Virtue to expand immensely. One will be without misfortune and without error. Then they can be a companion of Heaven and Earth until both have disappeared, yet they will not be endangered.[/i]
My thoughts
The ultimate emptiness is the Tao. The path to the Tao is through tranquility, constancy, clarity, acceptance, impartiality.
Everything, the 10,000 things, returns to its root, to its nature. Returns to the Tao. The 10,000 things are created from the Tao but continuously return to it. This is a theme that comes up time after time in many verses. To me this means that, even though the TTC includes a creation story, the process of creation didn’t happen once when the world began, but happens over and over all the time. The Tao and the 10,000 things are always both there. It’s our job to see that.
I think there is something worthy in framing the "solution" as a history of relation to the Tao, even if people disagree about what relationships are being brought into view. That element is good way to investigate the intention of the text but also how to see what came from framing reality this way. The "natural" is presented as a result of beings being created through opposites related to other opposites. In speaking of a "watershed" one line of thought that came from this understanding lead to empirical methods that were the foundation of medical research. Another way of proceeding can be found in the interest in divination via the The Book of Changes.
I can see some of the relational matrix you are promulgating in both of those outcomes. But they are very different in the agency one is supposed to assume to enter those systems.
That is why I brought up the question of mysticism earlier in responding to Wayfarer's remarks following the distinction he underlined between "existence" and the "real."
Whatever you might make of the above, something that has long struck me about Verse 15 is that the hidden quality of the old masters is being thrust into view in the context of a new conversation. It is not arguing upon the basis of authority. Nor is the matter a revolution that replaces one order with another by cancelling what has gone before.
Thank you for providing the 2 different translations, the commentary and your thoughts.
This provides access and allows for flexibility in reading the text.
It allows me to compare the two translations I have and note the differences.
I am not so concerned with accuracy of translation from the original Chinese characters, although I find it fascinating.
I have been intrigued by the language and the way it is consciously structured in poetic form.
The play on words and reading them encourages flexibility of thought.
I think that it is one of the purposes of the author.
To help us find the Way or set us on the right course by teaching us not to be rigid with fixed beliefs or opinions.
The text is not just to be read and analysed but to be held in reflection and responded to carefully.
The subtle and not so subtle, the play between reading, thoughts and action - all help increase an awareness of our different and limited perspectives.
Quoting Valentinus
[emphasis added]
I have been considering the question of 'What is natural?'
What is it for humans and their activities to be 'natural' ?
What is our natural way?
To create and destroy. To produce and eat food. To unite in cooperation, to disunite in opposition; to disunite in cooperation, to unite in opposition ?
To engage, to disengage, to re-engage. A cycle of analysis and synthesis.
A whole lot more.
Human beings; our ideas and knowledge have evolved.
We have intentions, desires, fears and hopes.
Across all cultures. Isn't that natural ?
Earlier:
Quoting Amity
The text seems to encourage a return to the good old days. Is there such a thing as an ideal past state ?
Is it desirable to return to a state of nature, whatever that might be ?
In this respect, I think Chapter 16 is an important one to understand.
Reading it is quite soothing. It provides a sense of comfort.
In the way that religions can do for some followers...
If you do follow the Way, then all will be OK...
Mitchell's translation starts with:
[i]Empty your mind of all thoughts.
Let your heart be at peace...[/i]
And ends with:
[i]Immersed in the wonder of the Tao,
you can deal with whatever life brings you,
and when death comes, you are ready.[/i]
[i]If the sky and the ground last forever is due to they do not live for themselves.
Following this example, the savant advances when he turns back. When he neglects, he take care of him. As he doesn’t seek his benefit, everything tends to be in his benefit[/i]
I don’t know if I have translated accurate. But I like this verse because I guess (just my interpretation) that Tao is developing here the principle of omnipresence. When the poem says “advances when he turns back” I think it is referring to either Principle itself or our knowledge.
Help?
Quoting javi2541997
I don't know but think your suggestion of the principle of omnipresence seems right.
Ivanhoe:
[i]Heaven is long lasting;
Earth endures.
Heaven is able to be long lasting and earth is able to endure, because they do not live for themselves.
And so, they are able to be long lasting and to endure.[/i]
Re: 'advances when he turns back'.
Mitchell:
[i]The Master stays behind;
that is why she is ahead.
She is detached from all things;
that is why she is one with them.
Because she has let go of herself,
she is perfectly fulfilled.[/i]
I don't know if this helps at all ?!
Glad you returned to Verse VII. I missed that !
Thank you Amity for your response.
.Quoting Amity
Yes! Helps a lot. I like the verse your shared. I guess it is better than mine. I wanted to translate it with my own vocabulary or brief use of dictionary because Google translate doesn’t translate it properly I think...
Quoting Amity
Thank you really. I thought this because some notes I read in a Spanish page of interpretation and he was speaking all the time of “be” and “not be” at the same time or “not act” but at the same time “receive everything” as it says: [i]She is detached from all things;
that is why she is one with them.[/i]
So, I thought, this sound like omnipresence.
What can I say ? If I had to translate from English to Spanish, the result would be :scream:
It is admirable what you are doing to share your translation and your interpretation.
It is a difficult text in any language. But worthwhile to engage with, I think.
Would you consider yourself a Taoist ?
Thank you so much. If I do so is because a sad context: the community of philosophy here in Spain is mediocre... (Probably because is still a traditional/catholic country, hmm).
I had a good teacher in school. He taught us philosophy through texts from different authors until I enter university. Since then, I never met someone who loves philosophy like him (or me hehe). So, I thought I had to try something so I started to find English speakers/thinkers that ended up bringing me here, in this forum. Hopefully, I finally found a good website like this after years of searching.
Quoting Amity
I think not at all because Taoism tend to be ideal. I respect and like the poems but somehow I only believe if I live it. I guess this is why I always like empiricism.
A good and inspirational teacher makes all the difference in the world :sparkle:
Quoting javi2541997
I enjoyed 2 other philo forums before coming here. It has its ups and downs. As do I.
I keep returning. What makes me stay are threads like this one, even as it throws up its own challenges.
Quoting javi2541997
Yes. I am pretty much the same.
Interested in not just the meaning of the texts but how the words and ideas translate into everyday action and behaviour. At every level of our world.
Yes it is so important having good teachers and a quality education system. This is the base for a good society. I remember back in that day (2014/2015) the minister of education wanted to remove philosophy from “selective exam” (it is a special exam where we have to pass if we want go to university). We were debating about it during hours and ended up about the conclusion that without philosophy a society can be in decay.
After 6 or 7 years I see it now. We are in decay...
I agree with the importance of education and critical thinking for all.
People are perhaps more engaged than ever in exchanging ideas. For better or worse.
It is the way we agree or disagree that is important.
Whether or not 'we are in decay' is another debate...
If we are, then is it a natural state of affairs that we can do nothing about ?
What would a Taoist say ?
Anyway, will leave it there...
Good to hear your story :smile:
Well, you know that our views differ on this notion of ‘act without acting’. But I don’t think the TTC was meant, originally. I think it is an expression of reaching towards the idea of the Tao in a way that provides some scaffolding for complex ideas beyond understanding. I think we attribute an author to the text in order to distance ourselves from what we cannot yet grasp, but I think the TTC is so ambiguous because there IS no ‘what Lao Tzu says’ and no ‘what Lao Tzu means’ in the text at all. All we can do is relate to the Tao from where we are, making use of scaffolding provided by the TTC to reach closer...
Quoting javi2541997
I personally don’t think Taoism is an idealist perspective - I think many interpretations read this into the text, and there is nothing in the text to actively discourage it. I don’t think it’s possible to interpret the TTC from its original form without bringing our own perspective into it - so perhaps the TTC itself is an idealist structure, but that’s not the same thing. I think we struggle to make the connection between Taoist thought and Taoist practices because of this notion of wu wei as an indirect, many-to-one causal relation.
When we try to make sense of English or Spanish translations of the TTC, we have consolidated concepts, verb tenses and sentence structures that we’re expected to relate to from a potential position, so we shift perspective in relation to the text. But the Chinese text doesn’t contain either expectations or instructions about our position as reader. It says that ‘these ideas relate to each other in this way’, and how we relate to that idea structure within the Tao depends on our own subjective position as a structure within the Tao, regardless of the author’s meaning or perspective. If we consider this subjective position to consist only of what ‘appears in the mind’, then it’s easy to mistake Taoism for a form of idealism. This is common to those who merely translate the TTC, as well as those who approach it philosophically or intellectually.
But if we recognise that this subjective position which relates to the Tao is inclusive of our variable position in spacetime (we often overlook this), then ‘experiencing the Tao’ is a much deeper process, and necessarily involves understanding the limitations, capacity and processes of the body in relation to what appears in the mind.
I’m thinking perhaps we see Taoism as either monist or idealist. I tend towards the monist perspective, myself. That may be why my interpretation often seems so out of step here.
Interesting analysis. We are agree in one important point: translation of TTC depends a lot about the way of understanding it because those authors tried their best to give us a book similar or at least closer to what Lao-Tzu thought back in the day. This is the main reason why sometimes I enter into this thread to ask and share my doubts with you because my version probably is insufficient. My TTC version doesn’t even have commented section. There are just the poems except an interesting beginning about a friendship between Tu-Fu and Lao-Tzu. Nevertheless, I think is beautiful and amazing how we, persons from different countries, are sharing thoughts about a poem thousands of years old.
Going back again with your perspective: I Quoting Possibility
This is why I pretended to say previously that TTC is pure idealistic symbolism. The structure of TTC is (just my humble interpretation) the Principle that can be also named as “world” or the the thing that emanates everything, etc... because Lao-Tzu puts some metaphor to at least trying to get these objectives: peace (this is why in some verses talks about a the difference between a good or bad savant can lead to be in wars or not) equilibrium (when talks about the Principle itself and how we interpret it in the most balanced position possible). Again, these are my interpretations probably I am wrong.
You perfectly explained that obviously TTC is idealistic. This is why I guess crashes a lot in my empirical point of view of life. Probably, I should take TTC as a Sui generis principle like unique trying to not mix it in other philosophical views.
I don't think you meant 'pretend' as in to 'to give a false appearance', did you ?
I see the Spanish 'pretender' can have different meanings: to aim, to claim, to profess'.
A case of a 'false friend' ?
Yes, pretend in Spanish is a “false friend” word. I didn’t mean “to give a false appearance” but the verb “to claim”
Sometimes we have to be careful about different words meanings :sweat:
English is a strange language. The origin of the word ‘pretend’ is ‘to claim’. In English, we’ve packaged this up more recently with a judgment of intention and/or accuracy in our meaning - thereby making our own ‘claims’ to knowledge. But I digress...
I admire your efforts to discuss philosophy, and especially a translated text, in a second language among native speakers. I don’t imagine it’s easy, and I have enjoyed reading your contributions here.
Quoting javi2541997
Peace and equilibrium seem to me fairly accurate descriptions of objectives, or ways towards the Tao. I think most of us agree more or less with the importance of these concepts, but perhaps not so much with the methods for achieving them. I think many people would advocate ignorance, isolation or exclusion as useful methods towards achieving a practical peace, for instance. But I don’t think this is the kind of peace that the TTC strives for - one that prefers division over interaction. So I would suggest unity as a third main objective - in the sense of acting as if one, not dissolving into a literal, singular totality. I also like that equilibrium has a more dynamic quality than balance.
It isn’t strange, it is unique! As other languages around the world. But English is important because is the basic language where we can communicate each other.
Quoting Possibility
Interesting facts. I think we only can put TTC in practice if we are truly convinced about Taoism. We have to keep in mind this is literally another path of see the life and live in. Lao-Tzu gives us a lot of wisdom but it depends on us if we want this principles work. I remember that some poems even was about ruling a territory or community. I think poems like this one only cause effect if you are interested in politics and so on with the rest...
I like word you used: “balance”. Yes, it is definitely better than equilibrium. Because TTC wants somehow to put equality principles to work on. You would not see in TTC something as totalitarian as The Prince, by Machiavello.
Terms of unity is something interesting to point out too. Because you used this term in the path of trying to get all Principles by one. Yes, because this is somehow we could archive all objectives of TTC.
I've been thinking about this. I have always thought that we can experience the Tao directly, but not with our conscious, verbal, rational minds. Above, you write that we will never experience the Tao. Here are some words from different commentaries on Verse 14:
So, what do I mean when I say something can be experienced without being seen, perceived, or observed?
I have been thinking that I haven't been putting enough thought into the selection of translations and commentaries when I post a verse. Sometimes I'm lazy and just slap something, usually Chen, down. I'm going to try to be more careful.
Quoting Amity
"Fixed beliefs or opinions" are hard to justify given the problems of translating from ancient Chinese and Lao Tzu's intentional or unavoidable ambiguity.
I think that's similar to what I meant when I said Lao Tzu didn't have a purpose in writing it.
Quoting Possibility
Sure. At the same time, I feel a relationship with Lao Tzu. I am learning something from him. It's personal. I'm grateful.
Quoting Possibility
Isn't the Tao the ultimate monist concept? It's so monist, it isn't even a concept. If by idealist you mean the fact that reality has an established underlying form or forms, Taoism is anti-idealist. The Tao is explicitly formless. If I'm using the correct definitions for "monist" and "idealist," it seems like we're all monists in this discussion.
Which allows us Americans to avoid learning foreign languages or cultures. We'll make the others learn our language. It's one of the big reasons so many people in the world don't like us much.
The Golden Age seems to be a reference in all the classical literature. There also seems to be striking differences of opinion about how to go about making the future more like the best of the past. Describing the "way of heaven" is how the good result happens. In Lao Tzu, there is a lot of energy spent on pointing out faulty approaches to establishing these "ways." I will quote Verse 18 since it seems less encumbered by wildly different translations:
.
What is being observed as negative results here are the bullet points others are selling as the best policy.
My take from this is that the Way that leads to good results hasn't changed from the beginning but the proliferation of bad advice requires an effort of negation that investigates why the bad could be taken for the good. The need to delineate between the named and the unnamed was not a problem the "old followers" of the way had to wrestle with in order to stop bad things.
I don't think Lao Tzu actually believed there was a Golden Age. He was a pretty smart guy and he understood human nature. I think the idea should be taken as metaphorical. The TTC tells us time and again that we the world returns to the Tao. Maybe returning to the good old days is just another way of describing it.
What I tried to say is that we will never experience the Tao that created heaven and earth. Lao Tzu claims that whatever that might be is the same Tao we can observe in our life as what is given birth here with us.
Verse 1 suggests we can catch some kind of glimpse of what we can never sense through some means of changing our relation to "desire."
But I find that idea very far from a way to put these ideas together. I read the proposal that the realms are so absolutely different and yet the same with astonishment every time.
Maybe he did not believe it. However that may be, he wasn't suggesting a pair of ruby slippers were a viable means of transportation.
I remember high school physics when we learned about the dual nature of light. Particle/wave. Wave/particle. Which is it? What do you mean both??? I remember the moment...Ding! The bell, the one in my head, rang. The fact that it seems weird is just my problem. There's something wrong with me, not the universe. That's just the way things are. That memory has been helpful in the 50 years since I graduated.
I think this is just political stuff we don't have to mix governments with people. When I was in Arkansas, Missouri, Illinois and Wisconsin everything was so awesome and I have good memories.
True, nobody knew Spanish but this made me stronger to improve my English so I ended up winning in that journey.
I am not sure if the references to different realms are being presented as conflicting reports of phenomena. It is acknowledged at the beginning that you will never be able to prove the difference or the sameness. The Tao that cannot be named and all. But the difference and sameness under-lay the claim about what is happening.
The ideas seem different as heard as a call to remain calm because of a "solution" or in the face of what will always be in tension.
I just wanted to clarify here that I was saying I think your word of equilibrium is better than balance. I think it allows for a continual sense of movement and change.
My wave/particle duality reference related more to the state of mind it takes to accept an apparently impossible contradiction. There is no resolution to the contradiction. There's no way around it. It's not a misunderstanding. That's the way things are and you just have to learn to live with it.
The feeling that I have about the Tao and the 10,000 things is the same as I felt in physics class. That blank feeling of ...Oh.
I've been to Europe twice, three times if you count the time my family lived there in 1952 when I was one. Most recently my brother and I went there in 2014. I've always been treated well by the people I met. I loved trying to make myself understood using my five years of high school French and one year of college German.
Thank you! I think both words are important to understand TTC because somehow the meaning of the book is connected to this two words.
I am glad to read this. It is interesting that despite our politicians are always discussing each other, the citizens have fun in both continents. I guess this happens because somehow our culture and values are connected doesn't matter a few differences that could be language or customs
I think the first two lines of this verse refer to meditative practices as a method of attaining the ‘emptiness’ observed in the old masters of the previous verse. Strict stillness is required to have any hope of getting to the root of existence.
I understand this verse as describing a process from attaining stillness in being, to then being able to observe the flow of everything, and notice the stillness to which everything returns again and again, revealing an underlying constancy to the world. When we’re aware of this, we have a clearer understanding of the world as a whole; but without this awareness, our actions lack flow and can be reckless and vicious. Without this awareness, we are apart from the world, and in conflict with it.
From an awareness of this underlying constancy, though, we are part of the flow, and act with fairness and justice for all. When we are fair and just, we have the capacity for great leadership, which then enables a spiritual awareness that brings us to the Tao.
The beginning of this verse and the end is where I notice the difference between monist and idealist - and it’s quite possible that I’m not relating to these labels in the same way as you do, so bear with me.
A Google translation of this last line is quite simply ‘not dead’, which amused me. But the characters describe the quality of not having a ‘main part’ to one’s structure (shen), and also a quality of ‘not almost’, or ‘probably not’. There seems to be a common assumption that this first quality of not having shen refers to a person, but the Tao is not a person. Plus, from the beginning of this sentence structure (arguably even the beginning of the verse) Lao Tzu is referring to a quality with no reference to ‘self’/‘I’ (the person in question attaining ‘emptiness’), so it really doesn’t make sense to suddenly bring a ‘self’ back in at the end.
English is insufficient in helping me articulate what I’m understanding here, so again bear with me. This last line refers to the eternal Tao as having no ‘main part’ to its structure, and no probability to its existence. This is contrast with verse 13, where the ‘I’ (the self as wú) is described as having a ‘main part’ to its structure (shen), through which one suffers greatly.
When we relate to the self as a living organism, its ‘main part’ is the body; as a conscious being, its main part is conduct or life (inclusive of body); as an experiencing subject, its main part is mind, consciousness, knowledge (inclusive of life). When we attain the state of ‘emptiness’ that leads us the Tao, there is no ‘main part’ to the structure, and yet, most importantly, none of the structure is lost - this ‘emptiness’ is inclusive of consciousness, life and body, NOT isolated from or dismissive of these aspects in any way.
So, the attaining of ‘emptiness’ is not a state of having NO self, but of dissolving the ‘I’ into the Tao - a state of being aware not as ‘I’ yet still inclusive of ‘I’: as but one facet of awareness.
When the body is recognised as just one facet of our conduct in living (rather than as its main part), then what draws our attention but cannot be seen is recognised for more than its destructive quality.
When our conduct, morality or lifespan is recognised as just one facet of consciousness, then what attracts our desire to learn but offers no set of instructions is understood as more than merely hopefulness.
And when our knowledge or consciousness is recognised as just one facet of a broader experience, then what attracts our efforts to relate, but cannot be grasped is meaningful for more than this quality of being abstruse.
I get the sense that intellectual approaches to the TTC tend to put aside the genuine difficulty in attaining this ‘emptiness’ as a physical state. I notice you’ve skipped verse 15, presumably not a favourite. There seems to be a kind of ‘could if I chose to’ approach to this practical aspect of the Tao, a drawing of the line that lends it an idealist bent. I guess if you never try, then you can’t fail, and it all remains a comfortingly theoretical approach to monism. The idea that we theoretically have intellectual control over our emotions, and thereby our thoughts, words and actions, is what Barrett challenges from a scientific standpoint. Taoist meditation challenges it from a practical standpoint.
But I don’t want you to get a sense that I’m attacking your approach as such. This is just something that concerns me about many of the translations I’ve seen here and elsewhere. We seems content with a description of what everyone ought to be doing, but I think the TTC calls us to relate to what it says from every level of our awareness.
Taoist meditation is a method of "quieting the mind." I practice a form of it called Shen Gong. But it is difficult to trace the origins of its principles before the powerful influence of Buddhism regarding the language differentiating levels of awareness and on the chattering quality of the "monkey mind."
Another element of the "practical" includes forms of movement that involve being guided by following the way. What we practice today as qi gong and related martial arts connects training with being able to do things along with preserving well being and bringing about rejuvenation.
From that point of convergence, the line between the practical and the intellectual is not only a type of self awareness but an understanding of what is around you and the capacity to act effectively as a result.
A lot of scholars resist reading this perspective as the intention of Lao Tzu and Zhuangzi but the many traditions that used those maps for their own purposes are important voices to be heard.
I think it has a lot to do with understanding the flow and distribution of energy throughout and around the body. Barrett talks in her book about the ‘body-budgeting’ system, which manages the flow of energy for the organism - including energy flowing to and from the people and situations around us - and how affect plays a role. There are a number of parallels between Barrett’s description of body-budgeting and interoceptive networks of the body, and management of chi through sitting, moving and deeper meditation practices such as Shen Gong.
I think a lot of Western-style meditation aims to temporarily quiet the mind, but doesn’t build skills towards permanently dissolving the apparent gap between mind and body. We like the gap - it gives us the illusion that we’re exercising some form of intellectual ‘control’ over the body. Taoist practices work instead towards a collaborative unity, and aim to refine our system structures of emotion, thought and action with an improved flow of energy (chi), beginning with an awareness of this underlying constancy that leads us to the Tao.
Quoting Valentinus
I agree. I’m not often convinced by the reasoning given for Taoist practices, but I definitely think they draw attention to an important aspect of ‘experiencing the Tao’ that can be easily ignored in an intellectual approach to the TTC. I think verses 13 to 16 at least point out the bodily aspect of relating to the Tao as inseparable from our experience.
I like the way you've set the post up, I remember that at the beginning of this thread I did line by line discussions when I posted the verses. I've gotten away from that and I think it was a mistake. It's mostly because I got lazy. Also, you mention that I skipped Verse 15. I'm thinking that skipping verses is a mistake too. I did it because the TTC has 81 verses and it will take forever to finish. That is a very un-Taoist attitude.
Quoting Possibility
There was a Tai Chi teacher in the TTC reading group I was previously a member of. At first, he didn't bring his Tai Chi practice into the discussion. During one of our meetings, someone asked him how Tai Chi related to the verse we were discussing. His answer really opened up the discussion for me, as well as my understanding of what Lao Tzu is saying. That is one of the reasons I keep harping on the idea that we can't understand the Tao, we can only experience it.
Quoting Possibility
This is a very good summary of the verse and, I think, the path to the Tao.
Quoting Possibility
Addiss and Lombardo translate the last line as "Tao endures. Your body dies. There is no danger." I think you make too big a thing out of the body/self distinction. I don't really experience my body as something separate from my self, identify, ego, spirit, consciousness, whatever you want to call it. I talk about it separately, just like I can talk about my emotions, perceptions, thoughts separately, depending on the situation. But I don't experience them as different. It is my understanding that many people do. I experience myself as all one thing.
Quoting Possibility
I'm not sure I understand. The Tao has no parts, but my self can. It's one of the 10,000 things.
Quoting Possibility
I think having no self and dissolving my self into the Tao are the same thing.
Quoting Possibility
Lao Tzu has a lot to say about this later in the TTC.
Quoting Possibility
That's what I mean when I say we can't understand the Tao, we can only experience it.
Quoting Possibility
Do you think this is my attitude. It's definitely not.
Quoting Possibility
I think Freud said just this back in the early 1900s.
Quoting Possibility
I don't get that impression at all. I do appreciate that you're looking out for me. I'm pretty shy and timid.
I don't see any way to avoid understanding that the intention of Lao Tzu is as you describe. Although, if I want to quibble, I don't really think he had any intention at all. In order to act without acting you have to intend without intending.
I agree.
Quoting T Clark
As a matter of philosophy, the text appeared amongst other views regarding "naming" and language. Contrasts between Mohist and Confucius are commonly drawn. But the matter is complicated by circumstances. The period when these texts appeared was followed by a dark age of the Qin Dynasty who expressed their distaste for scholars of any stripe through erasure. We only know of these works at all because of various "enlightenments" who had their own agendas long afterwards. As in the western tradition, the act of preservation is not completely separable from the ends of the one who saves.
Along these lines of inquiry, there is an interesting SEP article on Zhuangzi that challenges traditional explanations of the relationship between Laozi and Zhuangzi. While making a number of helpful observations, the author blithely attributes the perspective of training as I presented it as a product of Chan Buddhism. He suddenly becomes guilty of a generality he condemns others of committing. That sort of thing makes scholarship very difficult in both the "western and eastern" traditions
Quoting T Clark
My understanding of Verse 15 gives me a different view:
Of old he who was well versed in the way
Was minutely subtle, mysteriously comprehending,
And too profound to be known.
It is because he could not be known
That he can only be given a makeshift description:
Tentative, as if fording a river in winter;
Hesitant, as if in fear of his neighbors;
Formal, like a guest;
Falling apart like thawing ice;
Thick like the uncarved block;
Vacant like a valley;
Murky like muddy water.
Who can be muddy and yet, settling, slowly become limpid?
Who can be at rest and yet, stirring, slowly come to life?
He who holds fast to this way
Desires not to be full.
It is because he is not full
That he can be worn and yet newly made. — Translated by D.C Lau. Book 1, verse 15
The "holding fast" seems to involve both deliberate focus and bearing along with not doing what has to happen without his help. Desiring not to be full in contrast to desiring to be full. The intentions are hidden from others but is the one who is "holding fast" also hidden from themselves?
[emphasis added]
This is useful background which puts the TTC and its author's intention into context. Thanks.
Quoting Valentinus
The ongoing narrative or dialogue of such scholars would be fascinating to follow. I agree it is important to pay attention to more than just one tradition or voice.
To listen with care not just to what is being said but also to what is not.
Just as we are doing here.
This thread has been a bit of an eye-opener for me.
Important to me, your words regarding the convergence of intellect and practice resulting in an awareness and understanding, then the capacity to act effectively as a result.
I am taking time out to read this:
https://terebess.hu/english/handbooks.pdf
Quoting Trans. Louis Komjathy
The translation choice of sh?n as ‘body’, ‘life’, ‘self’, etc highlights the flexibility and unity of this quality/character, depending on the focus or perspective of the reader/translation. I think if we’re looking across the various translations, we can’t overlook this body/life/self relation as a qualitative structure - but it’s more complex than distinction or no distinction, separate or one thing. Why do we talk about emotions, perceptions and thoughts separately depending on the situation, when we don’t experience them as separately as these terms make out? I think this highlights the three levels of awareness that are often confused/blended into one (verse 13), and the cascade structure (verse 16) that presents each level as merely one facet of another level of awareness/relation. I think the TTC starts to give a sense here of a qualitative relational structure that talks about experiencing body-life-consciousness-self-spirit - sh?n - without separation, but also without blending these levels of awareness into a single level.
[i]Getting a full glass, without nothing spilling out, is impossible. It would have been better not fill it.
Getting a sharp blade, without the edge dulling, is impossible. It would have been better not dull it.
Conserve a living room full of Gold and minerals, without been robbed, is impossible. It would have been better not control that wealth.
You cannot control an extreme for long term. Any apogee has their own decay. Like the men...
Anyone who is showing off their power or richness, is preparing his ruin.
The retirement from the apogee and reputation, is the way to the sky. [/i]
Another example of equilibrium/balance from TTC!
Thanks for the information. I found this excerpt and TED video, here:
Excerpted from the new book 7 1/2 Lessons about the Brain by Lisa Feldman Barrett. Copyright © 2020 by Lisa Feldman Barrett.
https://ideas.ted.com/peoples-words-and-actions-can-actually-shape-your-brain-a-neuroscientist-explains-how/
The Xiudao you have linked to is an excellent review of Daoist practices and how they developed. At the very least, it shows how extensively they have made the original texts an integral part of their view of the sacred.
But I disagree with this statement as far too simple of a view:
"Moreover, there is no such thing as philosophical Daoism. Philosophical
Daoism is wholly a modern Western construct that has no correspondence
to actual historical events or personages. 10 From its “beginnings,” here
dated to the Warring States period (480-222 B.C.E.), “Daoism” was a
“religious tradition.”11"
The text that we have of the different schools of thought record disagreements and arguments about the nature of reality and of human beings within that context. The people who continued the arguments through different dynasties had their own view of how to describe the texts and their arguments. This argument that excludes the "philosophical" by default is a construct of its own in so far as it assumes the western tradition has succeeded in separating that activity from the religious. I am tired of all the babies getting thrown out with the bathwater.
The school of practice I am involved with is referred to in the Xiudao as the following:
"In Daoist texts as historically distant as the anonymous fourth-
century B.C.E. “Neiye” ?? (Inward Training) and Laozi ?? ( Book of
Venerable Masters), anonymous sixth-century C.E. Yinfu jing ???
(Scripture on the Hidden Talisman; DZ 31), and anonymous eighth-century
Qingjing jing ??? (Scripture on Clarity and Stillness; DZ 620), one
finds repeated admonitions to refrain from behavior patterns that dissipate
one’s foundational vitality. Inward Training understands Daoist practice as
ultimately connected to consciousness and spirit ( shen ? ), with particular
emphasis placed on the ability of the heart-mind ( xin ? ) either to attain
numinous pervasion ( lingtong ?? ) or to separate the adept from the Dao
as Source. Here the heart-mind is understood both as a physical location in
the chest (the heart [ xin ? ] as “organ” [ zang ? / ? ]) and as relating to
thoughts ( nian ? ) and emotions ( qing ? ) (the heart as “consciousness”
[ shi ? ]). Intellectual and emotional activity is a possible source of
dissipation and disruption. However, when stilled ( jing ? ) and stabilized
( ding ? ), the heart-mind is associated with innate nature ( xing ? ), the
givenness ( ziran ?? ) and the actualization ( xiu ? ) of one’s innate
endowment from and connection with the Dao. This return to one’s original
nature ( benxing ?? ) is the attainment of mystical unification ( dedao ?
? ).
Inward Training is clearly concerned with possible sources for the
dissipation of vital essence ( jing ? ), vitality ( sheng ? ), and spirit ( shen
? ). As the title suggests, emphasis is placed on cultivating the internal ( nei ? ), as innate connection to the Dao, over the external ( wai ? ), as potential
disruption of one’s personal harmony and stability."
While it is true that this map has continuity with Dao De Jing, it can never be a replacement for it. The importance of the poetic exhortation to all who would agree or not is not a formula that structures experience through assignment of roles. That would reduce the role of the hidden to simply being a trade secret.
I would like to add to my remarks above that the development of medical arts such as acupuncture from the same tradition involved empirical analysis that is "philosophical" in a way that is not discussed in the text.
I like this description. We like to think of ourselves as complete, whole, known (or at least knowable) in some substantial sense; that there exists some predetermined ‘essence’ of who we are, waiting to be discovered by ourselves and others. We continually lose and try to ‘find ourselves’, not realising that we are newly made by the variability of our ongoing relation to the world. The old masters didn’t assume or try to form an identity for themselves. By holding fast to the way, instead of holding fast to an identity or ‘known quantity’, they come across as unidentifiable, murky, passive and lacking in any apparent personality. It’s like trying to describe an electron. I especially like the phrase “formal, like a guest”.
Quoting Valentinus
I don’t think they’re necessarily ‘hidden from themselves’. I think it’s that intentionality doesn’t collapse into intended action for them but rather remains wave-like. It isn’t about their own intentions, but about the flow of energy - the distribution of attention and effort as far as their awareness of it extends into the world. Perhaps it isn’t that their intentions are hidden, but that they comprise only one facet of this more complex flow of energy.
Your description is a viable way to understand it. I certainly don't mean to say we could be an open book to ourselves such that we could start carving the uncarved block.
I think one role of "trying to describe what can't be really described" is the listener is being invited to look for this follower of the way in their own being. That an activity is underway that involves all of existence means that one is a part of it with varying levels of experience. One can start finding the "old follower" in experience that has already brought about good results. The power of metaphor can observe what precise explanations cannot. The elusive quality of "Falling apart like thawing ice" cuts through any list of qualities that can be expressed in other ways. All of our attempts to characterize it cannot add up to the "observation" we are being invited to participate in. Laozi is including his own efforts in that separation. But it doesn't mean we can avoid trying.
I talk about my emotions, perceptions, and thoughts; but I also talk about my fingers, toes, and stomach. That doesn't keep me from thinking of my body as all one thing. The self, the body, or whatever you want to call it, is one of the 10,000 things. It can be separated into parts.
Quoting Possibility
I went back and looked at several versions of Verse 13 and I'm not sure what you mean by three levels. Do you mean body, self, life?
I recognize the cascade structure you describe in Verse 16. It's like a Russian doll. Here are the chains, from Ivanhoe:
I'm not sure what to say about this. It feels important. You say "presents each level as merely one facet of another level of awareness/relation." Do you mean that each level is part of the one below it in the same way we have been talking about self and body as being different facets of ourselves? I'm not sure about that.
Quoting Valentinus
Do you have a feel for what this means? Does "numinous pervasion" mean experience of the Tao? What does "separate the adept from the Dao as Source" mean?
Quoting Valentinus
You use the word "map" a lot. A map is a representation of one thing by another, e.g. the world by a piece of paper. I'm going to go back and see how you've been using it in other posts. What map are you talking about here? Taoist practice?
You have started bringing your meditative practice into our discussions more. I really like that.
As I said in an earlier post, I shouldn't have skipped this verse. I've never liked it, but your way of seeing it makes a lot of sense.
I will try to give an answer that connects with our discussion after some time. It a practice of meditation where the homework is difficult. I can't see very far ahead. It is like learning the form in Tai Chi. I understand more of the language framing it after doing it for a while but I am not able to explain much.
Sure. I know that my experience of my practice is connected very little with my understanding and experience of the Tao. Although I understand they are connected both historically, conceptually, and in practice, I don't feel that. They are two things that I enjoy and they both use funny words.
As I said, I hope you will continue bringing your experience into our discussion when it seems useful.
I mainly wanted to bring up the practice to emphasize how the arguments regarding scholarship complicate the direct reading of the text.
Use your judgement about when you think it is useful. One thing it does for me is to make me think more about how I should be thinking about Tai Chi.
I agree, although I’m not sure what you mean by ‘good results’.
Experience is about quality, not ‘qualities’ - about relational structure and process, not activities or ‘things’. Quality interrelates in a many-to-one structure that is not conducive to separation and isolation into language concepts or ‘lists of qualities’. Metaphor enables the reader to recall the quality in an experience they may have around thawing ice falling apart, relate it to the quality in an experience they may have of the formality surrounding a guest, among others, and begin to render a possible experience out of the qualitative potentiality that results - without trying to consolidate it into a language concept.
This is where I think meditative practices come in handy - and with them the ability to recognise the quality of experience as a more complex structural process than the idea of consolidated ‘concepts’ colliding in mind-space, or the intellect wrestling for control over a primitive, emotional brain.
This is not a building block construction, it’s more like a painting. When we paint, we paint with quality. We reach for an element with a blue-green quality, and place it alongside an element with red qualities, and this draws attention to the red-green relation. We add sand to the paint, and it adds a textured quality to how we experience the image - it doesn’t add sand. We add water, and it gives a translucent quality.
My question wasn’t to challenge this separation, but to understand the process of switching from fingers and toes to body, and to emotions and thoughts - particularly the qualitative structural differences between what we refer to as fingers, bodies, organisms, emotions and selves.
Quoting T Clark
This from my interpretation of verse [s]13[/s] 14 (edit: oops! - my error):
Quoting Possibility
From outlining the problem, Lao Tzu looks at the old masters, and then puts together the cascade structure in verse 16 that corresponds to these three levels in a process of increasing awareness, connection and collaboration:
Quoting Possibility
Which then led me to this explanation:
Quoting Possibility
I hope this clarifies what I was saying.
Yes. Her older book ‘How Emotions Are Made’ also explains the body-budgeting system:
Simple, surprising and slightly off-putting with its apparent dogma; anti-philosophy.
It reminds me of attitudes held in both religion and philosophy.
Also, the questions of 'What is philosophy, what's it for, what's it all about Alfie ?'
I have no idea as to how 'philosophy' is being defined in the quote; looks like the narrow view.
Quoting Valentinus
Yes.
Quoting Valentinus
I think this ties in with @Possibility Quoting Possibility
Lisa Feldman Barrett's 'body-budgeting system' is of interest to me.
I have been noting how various posters and their responses or attitudes affect me.
Also, how appreciative I am of both the analysis of the text as well as being wowed by the imagery.
Perhaps both could be considered meditative ?
The former takes up more of my energy and thought process than the latter.
The latter - just looking rather than searching or needing to know.
As in art or music appreciation, both kinds of thinking help bring about a deeper understanding.
Or is it a case of wei wu wei ? Thinking then not-thinking.
'To refrain from behavior patterns that dissipate one’s foundational vitality.'
Knowing our behaviour patterns...
I know I tend to want to find out more. That does involve quite a bit of energy.
Costs and benefits - getting the balance right...
Stephen Mitchell
[i]When the Master governs, the people
are hardly aware that he exists.
Next best is a leader who is loved.
Next, one who is feared.
The worst is one who is despised.
If you don't trust the people,
you make them untrustworthy.
The Master doesn't talk, he acts.
When his work is done,
the people say, "Amazing: we did it, all by ourselves!"[/i]
Ellen Marie Chen
[i]The best government, the people know it is just there.
The next best, they love and praise it.
The next, they fear it.
The next, they revile against it.
When you don't trust (hsin) [the people] enough,
Then they are untrustworthy (pu hsin).
Quiet, why value words (yen)?
Work is accomplished, things are done.
People all say that I am natural (tzu-jan).[/i]
Here are my thoughts about the verse.
[i]When the Master governs, the people
are hardly aware that he exists.[/i]
For me, this verse is about wu wei, no action. The King doesn’t care about honors, status, power, or acclaim. He doesn’t act out of desire or fear. He governs without governing. This is from Mitchell’s Verse 15:
[i]Do you have the patience to wait
till your mud settles and the water is clear?
Can you remain unmoving
till the right action arises by itself?[/i]
For me, this is a perfect description of wu wei - both non-action and action without action.
[i]Next best is a leader who is loved.
Next, one who is feared.
The worst is one who is despised.[/i]
This is what I call a ladder and @Possibility calls a cascade. They are used a lot in the TTC, sometimes, like this, to describe what happens when a person loses contact with the Tao. This reminds me Stefan Stenudd’s translation of Verse 18:
[i]When the great Tao is abandoned,
Benevolence and righteousness arise.
When wisdom and knowledge appear,
Great pretense arises.
When family ties are disturbed,
Devoted children arise.
When people are unsettled,
Loyal ministers arise.[/i]
This is from Derek Lin’s translation of Verse 38:
[i]Therefore, the Tao is lost, and then virtue
Virtue is lost, and then benevolence
Benevolence is lost, and then righteousness
Righteousness is lost, and then etiquette
Those who have etiquette
Are a thin shell of loyalty and sincerity
And the beginning of chaos[/i]
This describes a descent from spontaneity to rigid rules and bureaucracy then to forceful, repressive action and then to corruption and weakness. This highlights a theme that comes up a lot in the TTC – what we call virtuous rule, which would be our highest aspiration in a democracy, is not the highest way to govern. Kindness and open-heartedness, which would be our goal in our personal lives, is not the highest step. To me, the step up to contact with the Tao isn’t really a step up, it’s a step out.
[i]If you don't trust the people,
you make them untrustworthy.[/i]
I’ve always thought that trust is not an actuarial judgement. You’re not betting that the person or thing won’t betray you. You understand that what you lose by not trusting is more important than what you lose if you are betrayed. I think these lines have something to do with that.
[i]The Master doesn't talk, he acts.
When his work is done,
the people say, "Amazing: we did it, all by ourselves!"[/i]
Other writers translate the last line differently:
It happened spontaneously. It happened without happening.
I'll take a shot based on my personal experience. It's all about awareness. When I come to something new, I have a general sort of awareness based on my immediate impression. If I expose myself repeatedly and pay attention, my awareness grows and I start noticing the parts of the phenomenon I am experiencing. They start to call my attention to themselves and I start focusing my attention on them. I actually started a discussion about what it feels like to become aware like this a few years ago. Here's a link if you're interested.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/2412/page/p1
Quoting Possibility
Thanks for the explanation.
I find it curious that so many of these translations read in a subject, such as the Tao, the government or leaders, that doesn’t exist in the original text. One of the basic rules of Chinese grammar is that it is topic-prominent, whereas English tends to be subject-prominent. Many sentences in Chinese don’t have a subject at all, which can be confusing.
The topic of verse 17 is its title - chún f?ng - roughly translated as ‘honest, genuine, pure’ ‘matter, style, wind, news’. To me, this clearly refers to the manner of the old masters, described in the previous verse, and verse 17 goes on to describe how this was all but lost to the world over time. With little but observable manner to base any understanding on - this manner appearing passive, murky, and unidentifiable - people were more inclined to trust their own accomplishments, and with this success as evidence, they relied on their own limited certainty.
[i]Initially, others were unaware of its existence. Then it was loved and praised, then feared, and then despised.
Without complete confidence in the why or how, there is no confidence at all.
Far removed, oh such noble, precious words!
Having accomplished success, many ancestors said: “I am surely correct”.[/i]
There are a number of differences between my own interpretation here and the majority of translations. I’ve tried to interpret the characters as literally as possible, and structured these ideas in relation to the general rules of Chinese grammar, without adding any of my own assumptions. I’m often surprised with how different this turns out from other English translations. The hermeneutics commonly employed in other translations has been clearly exegetical, similar to biblical interpretations, which seems to be the correct approach. The aim is to ascertain communicative intent from cultural, historical and biographical evidence.
But any intentionality is fundamentally unimportant, and so obscured, in followers of the Way, through the practice of wu wei. In the same way, the TTC is deliberately passive, murky and unidentifiable - just like the manner of the old masters. The trick, I think, is to be wary of making the same mistake as described in this verse, and forcing an interpretation to fit the conceptual structure of our own experience and knowledge, but rather to be open to restructuring our experience and knowledge, our conceptual structures, to fit the original Way.
Our attention and effort is naturally drawn to sensory details that differ from our predictions. So long as we find it useful to allocate attention to new information, then we generate an immediate overall impression or prediction of this something new, and then with repeated allocations of attention and effort, we acquire further sensory details that distinguish qualitative structure, and the brain employs sampling strategies to maximise detailed information with minimal effort - we categorise and group repeating qualitative patterns as concepts.
I had a quick read of the discussion in the link. I kind of wish I had been a part of it. Your discussion with Praxis was interesting - for me, the initial step in awareness is the unfathomable whole, or what I refer to as ‘this’, the possibility of which must exist prior to il y a or ‘there is’. It’s the reference point necessary for any awareness to occur, even in a potential sense. Yet there is no awareness of it. This points to the contradiction at the heart of all existence.
Quoting Possibility
This is a major procedural disagreement between you and me. You question the basics of all the translations of the TTC and I accept them, at least as a platform to work from. The TTC has been studied for thousands of years and translated hundreds of times. As I've said before, you've convinced me that, if I want to understand the TTC, I have to pay attention to language, but, when trip comes to fall, I will never be able to second-guess the opinions of a whole lot of people who know a whole lot more than I do.
You are explaining the mechanisms by which experience leads to awareness, a la Barrett. I was describing my personal experience, a la, well, me. I'm not questioning the value of what you are doing, but it was not the point of my previous discussion.
Quoting Possibility
Is this Kantian? Definitely has a touch of "Je pense donc je suis" in it too. Since we're speaking French. I don't see any particular contradiction. Also, that's not really relevant to what I am talking about, which is the experience of awareness. What it feels like to me.
Why not? You seem convinced that your own experience and understanding of the world has nothing to offer these so-called experts. I’ll admit that I’ve learned to second-guess all opinions, and never take ‘expert’ on face value. This may be a generational thing - plus, my university education in the 90s was steeped in PoMo, and I’ve since done the existential journey into nihilism and emerged out the other side unshackled by my Catholic upbringing, for one.
But surely you would agree that the most accurate platform to work from is still the original text, and that Fenollosa’s essay highlights just some of the errors and assumptions surrounding any interpretation from Chinese to English - especially by experts. I’ve learned from bible hermeneutics that we interpret religious texts as much from our own belief systems as from textual analysis, and that when push comes to shove it is invariably the text that gives way. Each translation brings with it the translator’s historical, cultural and ideological position in relation to the text, to ancient Chinese culture, to Daoism and to the Dao. This is more pronounced with the TTC because its structure invites this subjective relation much more than the bible, for instance.
I could spend my time on a contextual analysis of each translation, which might give an idea of the motivations that pull these experts to assume and even justify that Lao Tzu is talking specifically about governments and leaders, for instance. But I find it more useful to offer my own interpretation into the mix. When it differs markedly from most translations, I offer an explanation of the process by which I arrived at my interpretation, and why I think it’s truer to the original. If you choose to dismiss this based on my apparent lack of expertise, then that’s your methodology. I’m just sharing my journey.
Personally, I think the TTC - particularly these verses we are exploring right now - highlight the value of returning to original expressions of the Dao, armed with a better understanding of wu wei, to look for what is unobserved and unintended. It is these hidden examples of wu wei that are overlooked by experts, particularly those who claim to have the answers because they can demonstrate the success they have achieved.
Well -
To believe our own thought, to believe that what is true for you in your private heart is true for all men, -- that is genius. Speak your latent conviction, and it shall be the universal sense; for the inmost in due time becomes the outmost,--and our first thought, is rendered back to us by the trumpets of the Last Judgment.
and all that. I'm with Ralph and all, but right now, my "own thought" tells me that the translations provided by others taken together provide the best basis for me to proceed. I'll add your voice as one among the others.
Quoting Possibility
I come to the translations, and so, to the translators, for guidance experiencing the Tao. For me, what they are doing is saying over and over again "Hey! look over here. No! here! See this?"
Quoting Possibility
I haven't read more than the first couple of paragraphs of Fenollosa's essay. It's on my list.
Quoting Possibility
Sure. And that's why the final test - how well does the translation help me attain the experience - is the only important test.
Quoting Possibility
As I said, I don't dismiss what you have to say, I include it as one of the voices I listen to.
I liked these two verses compared. It is so interesting what you are sharing in your debate. I am reading it from the shadows :wink:
Lao Tzu repeats himself a lot, but each iteration is a bit different. I really like looking at that too.
I refer to this as a ‘cascade’ because I think the multi-dimensional aspect to the structure is an important one: loyalty is one aspect of etiquette/wisdom, politeness is one aspect of righteousness, and benevolent justice one aspect of the Tao. Not just the top step but each step is therefore a step out in all directions, rather than up, broadening our capacity to interact with the world, increasing awareness, connection and collaboration. The ‘descent’ is characterised by ignorance, isolation and exclusion - a closing ourselves off from our capacity to interact with the world, and a satisfaction with a lesser aspect. If we can’t be righteous, at least we can be knowledgeable; if we can’t be polite, at least we can be sincere...
And then suddenly we’re insisting on sincerity and loyalty instead of encouraging wisdom, or enforcing ‘political correctness’ instead of striving for benevolence. And a leader (like Trump) who claims sincerity and loyalty as his greatest strengths (without any interest in intelligence, etiquette, virtue or righteousness) is but a thin shell and the beginning of chaos...
If we’re thinking of these levels as ladder rungs, then I think there’s a tendency to quantify them in isolation. The idea that knowledge and formality/etiquette can result in falseness comes from understanding sincerity as one aspect of this level of awareness - but in a qualitative, not quantitative, sense. In other words, we don’t reach wisdom or etiquette by insisting on brute honesty in all relations. It’s about a qualitative awareness of sincerity. If we cannot differentiate levels of sincerity or loyalty in a qualitative sense, then any ‘knowledge’ we have is just data: it lacks formal structure, the relational qualities of wisdom.
Verse XI
[i]One wheel is composed by thirty sensible radios, but spins thanks to the central emptiness of a not sensible cube.
The crockery are made of sensible clay, but their hole is not sensible for the one who is serving.
The no sensible holes that are the doors and the windows of a house, are the essential
As we see in these examples.
The efficient, the result, comes from the no sensible [/i]
Thoughts: I guess TTC wants to show us here the difference between tangible and not tangible things. It is interesting how he explains that no sensible aspects are the ones which put emphasis in the sensible.
Probably, TTC is referring here as the spirit or soul of the things that exist around us as a mechanism of how they actually work.
Despite we need a practical part, he focuses in the importance of the roots or beginning from those things. Thus, no sensible parts.
Quoting T Clark
Yes, I too think it important to recognise the repeated themes throughout the TTC.
This serves as a teaching or learning aid - to ram the message home, if you like.
From https://principlesoflearning.wordpress.com/dissertation/chapter-4-results/themes-identified/repetition/
Repetition
There are short declarative phrases which help you remember. Also good if you want a quick-fix inspirational quote, I suppose. :sparkle:
There are intentional contradictions which make you ask 'you what?' :chin:
Our minds are activated in an effort to reconcile the paradoxes, see earlier discussion with @TheMadFool (p14)
I returned to Ch10 - Ivanhoe translation and his notes showing where lines are repeated.
[i]Embracing your soul and holding on to the One, can you keep them from departing ? (note23)
Concentrating your qui ''vital energies'' (24) and attaining the utmost suppleness, can you be a child?
Cleaning and purifying your enigmatic mirror, can you erase every flaw?
Caring for the people and ordering the state, can you eliminate all knowledge?
When the portal of Heaven opens and closes, can you play the part of the feminine?
Comprehending all within the four directions, can you reside in nonaction?
To produce them!
To nurture them!
To produce without possessing; (25)
To act with no expectation of reward; (26)
To lead without lording over;
Such is Enigmatic Virtue! (27)[/i]
Notes:
[i]23 For other examples of 'the One' see Ch 22,39 and 42
24 See qi under Important Terms
25 This line also appears in Ch 2 and 51
26 This line also appears in Ch 2, 51, and 77.
27 Chapter 51 concludes with the same 4 lines. For another passage concerning xuande 'Enigmatic Virtue' see chapter 65.[/i]
I don't think I gave this verse enough attention.
What strikes me now is the line:
'When the portal of Heaven opens and closes, can you play the part of the feminine ?'
I can't recall any discussion about 'the feminine'...
Is it about the caring aspect of humans, the creative part, the concept of Ying and Yang ?
Thanks for sharing it. I will check it out :100:
You're welcome. Thanks for your inspiration :smile:
And I was looking at the repeated patterns, noting Ivanhoe referred to Ch 51, Part 2 of the TTC.
Came across this:
'Tao Talks' by Derek Lin
Useful slides.
Here's the Tao Te Ching 32
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69PbMr3BVu0
https://taoism.net/tao/tao-te-ching-lectures/
Chapter 11 as translated and explained by Derek Lin.
Slides showing repeated Chinese characters. Also, the overall idea.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOAU7IlVF-I&t=46s
Amity!
Thanks for keep sharing this information with me. So much appreciated. I going to give a look
Ivanhoe trans. with notes, from:
https://terebess.hu/english/tao/Daodejing-Ivanhoe.pdf
[i]The greatest of rulers is but a shadowy presence;
Next is the ruler who is loved and praised;
Next is the one who is feared;
Next is the one who is reviled.
Those lacking in trust are not trusted.(36)
But [the greatest rulers] are cautious and honor words.(37)
When their task is done and work complete,(38)
Their people all say, "This is just how we are."( 39)[/i]
Notes:
[i]36 This line appears again in Ch 23. I interpret it as an expression of the Daodejing's characteristic view on de, 'Virtue'. For a discussion of 'Virtue'...and how it differs from related Confucian concepts of 'Virtue' or 'moral charisma' see my 'The Concept of de ('Virtue') in the Laozi'...( 1998), pp 239-57. *
For other passages concerning the concept of trust, see Ch 49 and 63.
37 Sages are reluctant and slow to speak, but their words are worthy of complete trust.
38 Cf. Ch 2,9,34 and 77.
39 Literally, "We are this way ziran". See ziran under Important Terms. Other exs: Ch 23,25,51 and 64.[/i]
* free download of Ivanhoe's The Concept of de ("Virtue") in the Laozi:
https://terebess.hu/english/tao/ivanhoe.pdf
I hope it is helpful. I've only just found it so haven't listened to it all, yet...
It would be good to hear your thoughts :smile:
I just saw it and these are my thoughts:
First of all, I think I discovered a new way of interpretation. He literally understands TTC as a cascade. from the first verse to the last one. I guess this would help me to interpret all the verses. I will keep it in mind more closely.
In the other hand, I have to improve my vocabulary. As I thought I was not making the proper translation. So, the next time I guess it will be important just seeing this dude again or search through internet the exact verse instead of translating it by myself...
About the verse:
It is interesting how he used the following pattern: emptiness<->function. As he perfectly explained, this is the basic figure of the verse. Container because only when it is empty is functional. A wheel because needs to be fitted. Then, a room, because when is empty is more accessible than a full one.
So, despite the fact emptiness could be a negative word, his interpretation is that we need both. He literally said the following:
Substance (having) is positive. Emptiness (not having) is negative. But you need both as a equilibrium/balance.
Also, probably is off topic but he remembered that a wheel is related as birth/rebirth inside Buddhism.
I didn't realise that at all ! Will have to listen...
I thought that, given there are two parts, it would have a break in flow...
A bit of a shame, then, that we have churned up the waters a bit, not following all the verses in sequence. Then again...such is life :wink:
Quoting javi2541997
As will I.
@Possibility already talked about the 'cascading' aspect within a verse.
Quoting javi2541997
Yes, again we hear about balance.
I didn't even think of the wheel as in the birth/rebirth cycle...
The circle of life. Nature. Not off topic.
Thanks so much for quick listening and responding. Your English is excellent if you can understand that so well :100: :smile:
Thank you for the feedback. This motivates me to keep going sharing thoughts about TTC in English with you. :100: :up:
Your timely and good quality feedback thrills my neurotransmitters to bits :starstruck:
Seriously, in this type of discussion where we are all at different levels of understanding, feedback is so important. If done carefully, it works to keep me informed and motivated too. Gracias :up:
When I saw "cascade" as a word for what I call a "ladder' I had no objections. Now that you've explained what you mean by that, I disagree. I think what Lao Tzu describes is very much a ladder. This from Chen, Verse 17
[i]The best government, the people know it is just there.
The next best, they love and praise it.
The next, they fear it.
The next, they revile against it.[/i]
I don't see that there's any way to interpret this as a cascade as you define it rather than a ladder as I do. Things get worse as you go down. Perhaps it's less clear in the Lin translation of Verse 18:
[i]Therefore, the Tao is lost, and then virtue
Virtue is lost, and then benevolence
Benevolence is lost, and then righteousness
Righteousness is lost, and then etiquette
Those who have etiquette
Are a thin shell of loyalty and sincerity
And the beginning of chaos[/i]
To me, it's the exact same ladder - away from the Tao. I don't think the Tao incorporates virtue, benevolence, righteousness, and etiquette. I agree that the behavior of someone who follows the Tao might be described as virtuous, benevolent, righteous, and polite, but that's just what it looks like. What's important is where it comes from. The behavior of a Sage is we wei, sincere. It grows naturally from within. None of the others do.
Quoting Possibility
Well, it's not us, it's Lao Tzu. And he's not insisting, he's showing us the way. With wu wei, there is no enforcing or striving. That's the whole point. Sincere is one of the words used to describe wu wei. Sincere doesn't mean nice and sweet and earnest. It means growing organically from inside us. Sincere behavior is our true natures acting in the world.
Quoting Possibility
To me, this reduces the most radical possible understanding of human nature and motivation to platitudes. Action with sincerity in this context represents a direct connection to the Tao.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/518920
Have just finished watching most of Derek Lin's YouTube lecture on Ch17:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQSWFy4nVE0
It lasts about 1hr18mins.
There is an excellent paraphrase of the paraphrase at c. 1hr 11 mins.
Breaking down the lines and, by example, encouraging us to put it into our own words.
Leading without leading.
With vision and humility to foster harmony for all, the very opposite of ego-driven selfishness.
His written translation, explanation and notes from:
https://terebess.hu/english/tao/DerekLin.html#Kap17
[i]The highest rulers, people do not know they have them
The next level, people love them and praise them
The next level, people fear them
The next level, people despise them
The rulers' trust is insufficient, have no trust in them
Proceeding calmly, valuing their words
Task accomplished, matter settled
The people all say, "We did it naturally"[/i]
I inserted spaces where he breaks it down in to 3 segments. The first part is the four levels, descending and degenerating. The final 3 lines considers the careful, calm Dao way to accomplish a mission with seamless action. This compares to the careless, stressful way of a leader who only thinks of himself who trusts nobody and nobody trusts him.
In the video, he talks of how the last line takes us back full circle to the first.
Indeed, if memory serves, I think he says that this is a feature of all the verses.
From his Notes:
Thanks to this page and the translation of sir Derek Lin I going to compare my thoughts about TTC with his comments. Also they are already in English so it will be so helpful to improve the perfect vocabulary when is required.
What I want to do from now is read a verse of TTC, interprete it in my mind and then compare it with Derek Lin's interpretation. I think it could be a good idea because sometimes I feel so lost from the real nature about TTC.
One of the beautiful things is how we are sharing different links and information. You are providing to me more information than my university back in the day :rofl:
I think that is the best way to go about this.
First, read and think for yourself before looking to others. How wise are you ?!
I don't always do that. I tend to overload then need a rest before I can appreciate...
I doubt I will ever change this behaviour pattern...even after reading the TTC :cry:
Quoting javi2541997
I am beginning to think that we are practising the Dao, don't you ? :scream:
The internet connects us all in good ways, if we know where to look and evaluate the content before deciding to share.
Universities are wonderful places but need to work within their own limits, restrictions.
The best lecturers inspire and encourage further reading. Not always possible or desirable within a course or module. If you want to get high marks...you gotta stick with the programme.
Sorry, I didn't catch that. Where did you find this ?
Yes! We are doing so. It is important this practice because we can ensure the quality of our documents. The, most of the cases we will know we are in the right path at all.
Quoting Amity
I found this interesting interpretation here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOAU7IlVF-I&t=46s
For example, check out this verse:
[i]The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named is not the eternal name
The nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth
The named is the mother of myriad things
Thus, constantly free of desire
One observes its wonders
Constantly filled with desire
One observes its manifestations
These two emerge together but differ in name
The unity is said to be the mystery
Mystery of mysteries, the door to all wonders[/i]
He reads it as a cascade in terms that what is the meaning of the first phrase and then what is the meaning of the last one. He not only does so in as a general aspect but an individual one. How the verse tumbling down as a cascade from the first phrase to the last one.
I am not sure that from the beginning of the book, the TCC itself right through to the very end is a 'cascade' as in a tumbling down or a descent...
Perhaps it is. I will have to wait and see.
I did take note that in Ch17 that the last line returns full circle to the first.
See here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/519005
Again, not sure that this happens in all Chapters.
Interesting to keep in mind...as we go...
Some of the commentaries use the repetitive structure as evidence that the text comes from an oral tradition, which is consistent with what you've said. I've also read that, in the original, the verses are rhymed.
Now that I would love to hear :cool:
Perhaps if we enter the Chinese characters into Google Translate and click on audio ?! :nerd:
The "cascade" method was just my personal interpretation of how the thinker of the video interpreted TTC. When you see how he reads and analyzes it, somehow looks like a cascade in my humble opinion but this fact is never being told in the video itself.
Sorry if I confused you because I guess I did not explain myself accurately :sweat:
:cool:
now time for :yawn:
That observation is an interesting dynamic involved with what might have changed a "working" arrangement to a less functional one. On the other hand, the awareness of what was lost in the "original" structure is presented as an ad hoc solution to what has been lost. There are attempts to correct the attempts at correction. However that might be framed, it is not simply invoking the return of a commonly received value.
So zhong has the relational quality of loyalty, faithfulness and devotion. The assumption that this quality relates to our ‘true nature’ (essence of the ‘self’?) has no evidence in the original text at all, but can easily be inferred from our own cultural understanding of English word concepts such as ‘sincerity’, ‘loyalty’ and ‘honesty’.
It probably seems such a small quibble to imagine faithfulness as a relational quality, rather than as a concept such as sincerity. But for me, this corresponds to the qualitative structural difference between righteousness and wisdom. For you, it’s a linear hierarchy, but for me, it’s another dimensional aspect of awareness. That’s not to say that I disagree with you - it can certainly be perceived as a ladder, but it’s a bit like drawing a circle and saying that’s the moon: it loses something in the telling.
I realise you think my approach attempts to undermine the foundation you’re trying to work from. I think I can imagine how that might feel from your perspective, and I don’t think it would be a comfortable experience. It does seem a shame to me to devote so much effort and attention towards understanding a text of this quality, that you’re not really accessing first-hand. And it is frustrating for me to watch you defend your own interpretation by using someone else’s interpretation as evidence. But this is what we’re working with.
I appreciate the efforts you have made to include my perspective in your approach. I hope you don’t mind if I continue to chime in, even though I get the sense that my dissension may be more tolerated now than taken into account. I am enjoying the opportunity to explore the TTC and see how others interpret it.
Agreed. The idea is to recognise that the ‘original’ structure is the ultimate reference point - in the same way that righteousness is not the Tao and wisdom is not righteousness, so too, the example observed in the old masters is but one aspect of the Way, and the teaching of the old masters is but one aspect of their example. The relational structure here can be simplified to a linear hierarchy, sure - but I think it is more accurately dimensional, and that rendering it as a linear structure misses something of the quality and functionality of the Tao.
[i]True words are not beautiful
Beautiful words are not true
Those who are good do not debate
Those who debate are not good.
Those who know are not broad of knowledge
Those who are broad of knowledge do not know
Sages do not accumulate
The more they assist others, the more they possess
The more they give to others, the more they gain
The Tao of heaven
Benefits and does not harm
The Tao of sages
Assists and does not contend[/i]
My own thoughts: modesty and kindness are the key words in this verse. If we put emphasis in how they want put a balance in the first phrases, we can clearly see how he promotes the development for all those who are not showing off their skills to others, because we should share our knowledge to others not because how wise we are but with our sense of humility. For this reason, the Tao says: Those who are good do not debate Those who debate are not good. Those who know are not broad of knowledge Those who are broad of knowledge do not know
Kindness because Tao goes for the principle of respecting every individual not making him feeling less than the Tao himself. This is why says: The Tao of heaven. Benefits and does not harm. The Tao of sages. Assists and does not contend
Derek Lin's interpretation says about this verse:
[u]Sages have no need to accumulate worldly knowledge or goods, because they find contentment and abundance in helping and giving. The more they render assistance, the more fulfillment they possess; the more they give to people, the more blessings and wisdom they acquire.
Sages recognize that the positive, uplifting Tao of heaven benefits all living things and does not harm them. In emulating this, sages also seek to benefit others by helping them, and refrain from harming them with contention.[/u]
That's not an unfair assessment, although I'd go a bit further. It's not just one translation, I've looked at 12 or 15 and I look at four or five regularly.
Quoting Possibility
The Tao that can be related to is not the eternal Tao. Sorry, but actually, it's true. The Tao does not relate to anything. That's the point. I'm sure "sincerity" is not the absolute best word, but it fits with my understanding of the TTC. I don't see how faithfulness fits at all.
Quoting Possibility
It's a metaphor. I don't claim it has a universal truth. I have a friend I've discussed this with. He would say that attributing any sense of one thing being better than another in the TTC is wrong. I get his point, but, when it comes to the Tao, language doesn't work that well.
Quoting Possibility
This is pretty condescending.
Quoting Possibility
I hope I've never given the impression that I don't appreciate you being here. You've really helped me understand what I believe better than I did before.
In so far as Verse 17 concerns what a society does, it seems like it has to assume that different people have different roles. The farmer farms, the tradespeople provide goods, healers heal, warriors fight, and managers manage, etcetera. In addition, this society had a strong connection to their ancestors and respect for their elders. In calling for less need for structured intention, the intention of these people in their different roles is still underway. I take the point that "linear" ranking is being criticized as being unnecessary on many levels but it doesn't seem to me that it dissolves all structures.
This is similar to the uncertainty I expressed earlier concerning intentions in Verse 15.
I have been thinking about your comment since you made it and wanted to give a better response than I did before.
The way that Taoism became a religion did build upon magic and potions. There are many references to what separates the living and the dead that are not given the attention that earlier readers were concerned with.
The references to nature as being one reality for all was not an empirical basis for observation by itself. That language was borrowed later to make practical models. It was not a starting place like Aristotle was for different sciences.
The conversation about what can be talked about is interesting. From that perspective, the account we have been given is an account of disagreements, similar to Plato's dialogues.
Quoting Valentinus
I think that's the meaning of 'dialectic' in philosophy - which is quite an elusive idea, really, that something emerges through a dialectic of opposing viewpoints which can't be elucidated in any direct way.
I do recognise the merits of this broader methodology - and I have learned a lot about the differences in each translation from your approach, so thank you. It does have a ‘cherry-picking’ feel to it sometimes, but then I’m reminded that your approach was always going to be personal, and that my criticisms come across as quite uncharitable in this context, so I do apologise.
Quoting T Clark
I think you misunderstand where I was going with this, but I have to say that I disagree with your first sentence here. The Tao does not need to relate to anything, sure - but WE do. The point of the TTC is that we CAN relate to the Tao, and in fact that is ALL we can do with it - we can’t fully understand it or define it or describe it. All we can do is build relational structures as scaffolding, enabling us to relate to the Tao, in a qualitative sense, with all that we are.
I’m not suggesting that ‘sincerity’ as a word cannot fit - only that the way we understand the concept of sincerity consolidates the relational quality so that it stands in isolation, as one of the ‘10,000 things’. There is some ‘unpacking’ that needs to occur to allow its quality to flow freely. For me, there is a noticeable energy flow difference between sincerity in or of the Tao (which is not the Tao), and faithfulness as qualitative relation to the Tao.
Quoting T Clark
I recognise that it’s a metaphor, but that’s not really an excuse - what we refer to as ‘metaphor’ in an English translation of ancient Chinese is a recognition of the qualitative uncertainty and subjectivity in relational structure, which the English language (and even modern Chinese) attempts to conceal by consolidating concepts - this is why our language doesn’t work that well when it comes to the Tao. And I agree with your friend. I do think this structure described in the TTC corresponds to a universal truth in our capacity to relate to the Tao. It helps to keep in mind, at least, that hierarchy is a product of affect.
Quoting T Clark
It’s not about appreciation. But I should just be satisfied with helping you better understand what you believe, because that’s how I would probably frame my own journey here. That’s it: no more of these self-pitying complaints from me.
I’m not suggesting it ‘dissolves all structures’ - only that it has no inherent hierarchical aspect: it is our affected relation which brings this in. So, in verse 17, those furthest removed from the example of the old masters will always be connected to them, as to their ancestors and elders, in an existing relational structure. ‘Respect’ refers to how affect alters that relation, relative to the observer. Lacking faith in the relational structure itself, all they see is the affected relation, and what starts as reverence soon disintegrates into fear, and then insult. When we can’t understand the structure by which these old masters are relating to the Tao, we can’t understand how much we have to learn.
Quoting Valentinus
I can see this, and I agree. It is the uncertainty or non-linear causal relation in the intentions of the old masters (and the structure of our relation to the Tao) that Lao Tzu seems to suggest as a contributing factor for this historical deterioration in respect for the Way. It’s not as simple as ‘do this to achieve that’, and ‘don’t do this or that will happen’. The structure is far more complex.
I've been thinking more about this ( go figure !)...
The repetitive rhyming mixed with non-rhyming aspects and how the text in its oral tradition would have had more of a 'musicality' to it. In reading the text as presented, there is something lost - the sound of the stories and, perhaps, the teaching.
Typically, my ears are attuned to Western music and language. I have only recently become aware of the sounds of Chinese words. This by listening to the Derek Lin YouTube sessions. Even when he was describing the difference between thirty ( the spokes of the wheel ) and thirteen - you could hear the different tones. The rise and the fall.
Also, there is mention of this in Tim Chilcott's Introduction - the stylistic patterns.
His is a parallel text translation of the TTC.
He says that this is not difficult to translate - what is impossible to reproduce is the sound of the Chinese rhymes. He tries to keep this element by using 'persuasive rhythms and a sense of cadence often based on iambic metre'.
He continues with the importance of keeping the quality of the natural, unforced voice. This brings home the point that 'the text is as much to be spoken aloud as read silently'. ( pp. x -xi )
http://www.tclt.org.uk/laozi/Daode_Jing_2011.pdf
I think with some of our fixation on the meaning of words we are taken away from this element.
We might be in danger of losing our way, if we cannot also take time to appreciate the sounds.
So, you couldn't wait, huh ?
Quoting javi2541997
As a final conclusion, it would seem to highlight something already touched on - with @Valentinus - the view by some that the there is no such thing as philosophical Daoism.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/517338
I think a lot hinges on how 'philosophy' is defined. Some might just see it as a set of arguments going nowhere in particular with opponents finally agreeing to disagree. Others see it as a way of life.
For example, what are your thoughts on the recent debate regarding which metaphor is more useful or helpful - the ladder or the cascade ?
Is that why you picked out the final verse ?
To be honest, I choose the cascade method because for me it is more useful. Probably because I saw explained it in the video you shared with me so I literally see TTC as cascade since that day. Ladder could be more difficult because steps could mean one phrase or verse are above or higher to another but I do not see it as that way. Also, I remember the conversation of Lao-Tzu with Tu-Fu. Here is when Lao explained that TTC, as water, flows over us during our lives. I guess this is why cascade metaphor is more accurate.
Quoting Amity
To be honest I picked the final verse because there is a strange phrase (supposedly from Lao-Tzu) that I wanted to share but I don’t know their origin neither if it is verified. The phrase literally says: I have finished. Perhaps, you will find my discourse so rough, not subtle neither wisely.
This phrase randomly appears in my version but surprisingly I do not see it along internet so I don’t know if it is true at all...
Yes. Perhaps we should join hands and sing the verses. Connecting :sparkle:
Seriously, thanks for all your input, even if sometimes I struggle, it is worth the effort.
Yes, I can see it as more in keeping with the natural flow.
However, I think the ladder can be useful too.
In a certain verse where levels or hierarchies are being described. Descending from some Good Ideal, degenerating to the Bad Non-Ideal. Or ascending...from a lower self to a higher one ?
I was thinking not only of the material rungs but also the spaces between the rungs.
The rungs need the flow of space as well as the strength of the joints.
If the rungs are wide enough, they can hold more than one aspect of a type.
We are multifaceted beings - connected in space -
Oh, I'm getting carried away...
Quoting javi2541997
How interesting is that !
Can you copy the whole verse out to show where it appears in context ?
[Edit re ladder metaphor: https://theladderofeducation.weebly.com/the-ladder-metaphor.html ]
Understood.
This brings in the issue of connectedness.
Tim Chilcott talks about it in his Introduction and how he gets over the problems created by disconnection in the text.
http://www.tclt.org.uk/laozi/Daode_Jing_2011.pdf
I scribbled some notes or quotes:
So, sometimes there are small jumps between different ideas but other times there are bigger illogical steps. He chooses to avoid the false connections made by other translators when they introduce the joining words, like 'hence' or 'and so'.
He presents the separate sayings as separate. He prefers real incongruity to contrived cohesiveness.
I like this kind of KISS - keeping it short and simple :kiss:
This point is so interesting! I didn’t notice it as this way. Now, as you explained the space between the rugs I see it differently too. It could be more complex ladder metaphor because somehow It passes to my mind the act of “climbing” and then, I thought that every paragraph was different p. But now, it is more clear about the space example or metaphor.
Quoting Amity
Yes. Agreed. Tao used to put this criteria to explain balance or equilibrium, etc...
Look, here appears in my book. It is Spanish. But you can see it is in different context or probably he is saying goodbye because it is in parentheses... and then is when the verse starts. I refer the first paragraph, when the parentheses ends.
My own use of ‘cascade’ was in reference to its secondary meaning: a process whereby something, typically information or knowledge, is successively passed on; a succession of devices or stages in a process, each of which triggers or initiates the next. The idea I didn’t want to lose in simplifying the metaphor to ‘ladder’ was that of the results of the previous stage also being part of each subsequent stage in the process, as much as the sense of flow that the word conveys.
I also wanted to get away from any sense of hierarchy, as I think this is more to do with the human condition of affect (desire) than with the Tao.
Personally, I understand the structure as more of a dimensional relation - like rendering a tessaract, but the metaphor is maybe not so pretty.
Yes. I edited my post to include that upward path. Underlined.
Quoting Amity
Thanks :up:
I will try to resist the temptation to go on an Easter egg hunt. That's over :smile:
This one sounds so interesting but I don’t get it because I don’t understand what is a tessaract. When I search in internet appears this: Tesseract is an optical character recognition engine for various operating systems. It is free software, released under the Apache License.Originally developed by Hewlett-Packard as proprietary software in the 1980s, it was released as open source in 2005 and development has been sponsored by Google since 2006
I guess I am in the wrong way because that is literally tech :rofl:
You are welcome :up:
I don’t think it is an Easter Egg because I guess it is just a random phrase by the author who translated. I start losing credibility in the book I have...
I googled. First thing that came up was from wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesseract
Sorry, spelling error: I meant tesseract.
There’s no need to get into the technical stuff. Basically, the tesseract (4D) is to a cube (3D) as the cube is to a square (2D), as the square is to a line (1D), and as the line is to a point.
Thanks I misspelled previously this is why a random tech word appeared.
I understand it now. I really like your metaphor and it reminds me the cascade one but yours is more technical and specific. So I guess it is pretty to use too.
Well, inside TTC we can use as many as metaphors we could imagine because it is a really free interpretation poem.
I copied and pasted. I think the search engine corrected the spelling. Clever :nerd:
Wow that’s so cool the machine thinking and acting cleverly than the human :100:
English:
Tao Te Ching - Read by Wayne Dyer with Music & Nature Sounds (Binaural Beats) 1hr 5 mins
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73_Voet2fnc
I like it. Gentle sounds. But might get irritating...
From Comment below the video:
[i]You don't need to start with the beginning. You can literally play this from any point in the video and still gain something. I have a special liking for the second half which covers leadership and governance.
I claim no rights to the content in this audio reading. This video is not being monetized. It is a gift to you. I put this together only because I found NO OTHER source on YouTube that has put this Wayne Dyer reading to Binaural Beats and nature sounds, and I felt like we really needed this version. Listen before bed. Listen in the morning. Listen when you just need to slow down and gather your thoughts before making an important decision.[/i]
Mandarin:
Tao Te Ching - Full Edition with Cartoon ????-??Laozi ???-???? dào dé j?n?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSk8yZaZRaA
This is a bit...er...lively and I have no idea where the actual TTC starts and ends. 1hr 52 mins.
Not feeling it.
Can't find what I want :sad:
A meditative and gentle Chinese version of the TTC with subtitles. To drift along with...
One with no music. No distraction.
Tao Te Ching or The Book Of The Way by Lao Tzu Translation by S. Mitchell.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2UYch2JnO4
[b]Has anyone listened to the TTC - bought an audio book - any recommendations ?
Help ?![/b]
It started with the story/legend of Tu-Fu! Pretty good. I liked it. I don’t know what it says but it is so interesting and beautiful lol.
Quoting Amity
Thanks for sharing this links. Appreciated. :100:
You are welcome :smile:
But I now have a problem.
When I went to Google Translate - everything but everything is written in Chinese characters :roll:
No idea how to change this :brow:
Help ?!
I checked it again and I see that, sadly, the opened text for translation or subtitles is not available. So I do not know how to help
I find it’s like a written piece of music. The notes are presented in a formal structure, and each note, bar, melody and movement has a certain quality that is laid out for the musician in the text. But each musician interprets it in their own way, and is under no obligation to even follow the formal structure precisely.
For those of us who can’t read the original score, we have a wide variation of musician performances available to draw from. Some versions speak to us more than others, but it is in the variability between them all that we recognise none of these performances is equal to the original score.
If we attempt to follow the original score alongside these various performances, we can start to see where each musician has taken liberties with the score structure, to suit their personal performance style or instrument, or to convey a particular sentiment. It is their prerogative, after all.
I guess the question becomes: why are we exploring an interpretation of this piece of music? Is it to forge our own personal performance of it, our own interpretation among the many, or is it to help others connect with the truth of the composition, with what the score was reaching towards?
Interesting interpretation. I guess this happens with the most of the art that are so complex and abstract. When a piece of work can be interpreted furthermore than the original structure tend to pass a lot of generations or centuries because it can be interpreted depending in the era and social circumstances.
Nevertheless, we also have to keep in mind the original one.
It's not really cherry-picking. I don't take any of the translations as right or wrong. I'm using them to build up a collage of the Tao. I see myself as a forensic sketch artist trying to make up a picture of it based on witness descriptions.
I don't think you have been uncharitable.
Quoting Possibility
I'm trying to decide whether I agree with this or not... Ok. I'll agree with a stipulation. I still think "relate" is the wrong word, but I'm not sure what the right word is.
Quoting Possibility
I think this is responsive to what you've written. I hope so. The Tao gave birth to the 10,000 things. That is the relation between them. I guess the only one. I have not resolved for myself how we get from the Tao to the 10,000 things. What I always told myself was that it was people naming things that did it, without putting any more thought into it than that. I still think that makes sense, but I'm pretty sure it's not what Lao Tzu had in mind. That's as close as I have come to recognizing a relationship between the Tao and the world. I think the idea of "te," which comes up later in the TTC, has something to do with it.
Quoting Possibility
I don't understand what you're trying to say. No language works that well when it comes to the Tao.
I don't disagree with you, but I just don't know what to do about it.
Libravox, a wonderful free audio book site, has the Tao Te Ching in English. I don't know if it has it in Chinese.
Quoting javi2541997
I agree the original is important to keep in mind. However, I think the original TTC is a problematic concept. Originally music was played naturally by ear. I imagine the voice would be the first instrument.
To sing, to express joy or emotion...to send a message of love ?
The notation systems were added later as guides with notes as reminders - not only what note is to be played but how e.g. andante, accelerando and for how long, when to rest.
Also the volume - pianissimo ( very soft, gentle), fortissimo ( very strong, loud). Each instrument follows the score but has its own part to play in an orchestra. Each singer in a choir....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Italian_musical_terms_used_in_English
To return to the text and the modern ways of presentation and interpretation.
Clearly there are many; written translations, oral and aural.
I picked out 3 different ways to listen to the TTC on YouTube. The mandarin lively cartoon style didn't do much for me but @javi2541997 gave it a :up:
Sometimes the personal appreciation can depend on the mood and energy of the listener - if we need calm or if we want stimulation.
The message stays the same, only we hear it differently.
Song writers can sing their own or others cover the original.
To compare and contrast performance is fascinating. From the Deep Songs thread:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/518043
The original can be more 'real' or natural. However, it can be enhanced or otherwise - depending.
The important point here is that the message is accessible to a whole lot more people than the original.
The poems or verses of the TTC are not the songs as sung by one author. It would appear that they are a collection developed over a period of time by different poets.
As with any other ancient texts, what we have at best is the oldest manuscripts that have been found.
There may have been at that time other versions.
For me, this means finding the best that fits my ears. Even if not the 'authentic' original whatever that might be...
I want to hear the sounds as well as read the words. I can also learn to appreciate those I am not currently attuned to.
There is a wisdom within the TTC but written and read by humans it will not be perfect understanding.
Interesting though to think of the musical term 'Da Capo' which means to return to the beginning.
From the beginning, from the head...
Just as in some of the verses, there is a return from the end lines to the beginning...
Also, the repeated phrases - just as in music, the motifs play the dominant or recurring idea.
We can consider whether it matters or if something needs to be done at all.
We can consider what is it we are fixed on and why.
We can look to the TTC itself, if we can get past the blockage.
I think you answered this yourself earlier.
Fixation can mean an act of concentrating directly on something with the eyes.
Didn't you talk of using peripheral vision ?
Couldn't this also include - lifting eyes from textual analysis simply to appreciate the sound and rhythm.
Another way of looking...
Someone suggested that we can read it aloud. Actively listen to our own voice - externally rather than the internal chatter...
Another thing I thought of.
About a ladder as it happens.
I have a fear of heights, the manmade type, especially unstable ladders.
So, why was it I found myself as an inebriated youth climbing up a long ladder to the top of a water tower. Madness. The aim was not a good one. To see the view ? No. Just because my friends were doing it.
I got stuck half way up, paralysed with fear.
I couldn't go up or down.
What was required - help from others both above and below me. Listening to them and taking a few deep breaths. Step by step descending with utmost care and attention.
Does this apply to the text? Is our aim understanding or what ?
Quoting Possibility
Is there a fear that if we don't understand one bit perfectly, then we stay there. Progress halted.
If your aim is to make a collage of all different interpretations or bits of texts - then perhaps there can be something of an obsessive desire involved...
This can sometimes be seen as un-natural. But hang on, if it is natural to you then why not ?
Generating a novel way of looking by combining ideas, isn't that the sign of genius ? :nerd:
Ascending...step by step...
Sometimes it means less attention paid to other aspects. Again, it's all about balance.
I had forgotten about Librivox - yes, it helped me when I was learning Italian :cool:
https://librivox.org/
The translation I found was that of Legge. I don't care for it much.
Also noted there is a German translation.
Couldn't find a Chinese version. However, there are lists of tons of Chinese stories, books within which the TTC might be hidden...
Well, if you find a better word, be sure and let me know. For me, ‘relate’ is the basis of existence, the purest description of the seemingly infinite ways and levels in which anyone or anything could be aware of, connected to or collaborating.
Quoting T Clark
I agree that the most obvious difference between the Tao and the 10,000 things is the naming. What this naming does, though, is divide any relation to the Tao through a process of awareness/ignorance, connection/isolation or collaboration/exclusion in what would otherwise be a completely free flow of energy. An experience of that is not this. It’s not just how we make sense of existence, but how existence (or the flow of potential energy itself, chi) has gradually made sense of itself: from the differentiation of matter from anti-matter or the up/down spin of quantum particles, to the broad diversity of life, the universe and human ideas.
So, although we may have a sense that this diversity is one, our energy is spent developing relationships with each of the 10,000 things, and then between each of them, in order to try and unify them. It’s beyond the capacity of a single human mind - this is a realisation I was struggling with long before I picked up the TTC. I see the TTC as an attempt to understand what unifies the 10,000 things in the Tao without necessarily having to identify and understand each of them individually - without knowing everything. Lao Tzu uses the logical system of the traditional Chinese language, which builds ideas out of qualities in the human experience, to build a logical framework idea which enables a qualitative human experience of the Tao that transcends the 10,000 things. It’s genius, really.
The difficulty is that self-identity is one of these 10,000 things - and we’re rather attached to this concept (among others) in our modern, Western experience. So there’s a disconnect between the quantitative conceptual structure of modern thought (ie. English idea concepts) and the qualitative experiential structure of the TTC (Chinese idea characters), which we refer to as ‘metaphor’. Meditation helps to explore a clear mind as consisting of qualitative experience, which eventually allows us to explore ideas as qualitative experience, instead of as conceptual structure. But I think that understanding how the logical framework described in the TTC might be translated into a framework between conceptual and empirical reality can also be useful, especially if we’re working in English.
I do think that te (literally translated as ‘virtue, goodness, morality, ethics, kindness, favour, character’) refers to this constructed framework idea.
@Amity quoted this from one of your posts and it made me think of a passage that deals with musical interpretation but which I think can also be seen as a way of seeing the Tao. The following passage, I apologize for its length, is from "October Light" a novel by John Gardner. I also apologize to the ghost of Mr. Gardner because I've separated the passage into paragraphs while he had it as one long one. I think I understand why he did it that way, but I wanted to make it easier to read. I love it.
[i]Then it had come to him as a startling revelation-though he couldn't explain even to his horn teacher Andre Speyer why it was that he found the discovery startling-that the music meant nothing at all but what it was: panting, puffing, comically hurrying French horns. That had been, ever since- until tonight- what he saw when he closed his eyes and listened: horns, sometimes horn players, but mainly horn sounds, the very nature of horn sounds, puffing, hurrying, getting in each other's way yet in wonderful agreement finally, as if by accident. Sometimes, listening, he would smile, and his father would say quizzically, "What's with you?" It was the same when he listened to the other movements: What he saw was French horns, that is, the music. The moods changed, things happened, but only to French horns, French horn sounds.
There was a four-note theme in the second movement that sounded like "..Oh When the Saints," a theme that shifted from key to key, sung with great confidence by a solo horn, answered by a kind of scornful gibberish from the second, third, and fourth, as if the first horn's opinion was ridiculous and they knew what they knew. Or the slow movement: As if they'd finally stopped and thought it out, the horns played together, a three-note broken chord several times repeated, and then the first horn taking off as if at the suggestion of the broken chord and flying like a gull-except not like a gull, nothing like that, flying like only a solo French horn. Now the flying solo became the others' suggestion and the chord began to undulate, and all four horns together were saying something, almost words, first a mournful sound like Maybe and then later a desperate oh yes I think so, except to give it words was to change it utterly: it was exactly what it was, as clear as day-or a moonlit lake where strange creatures lurk- and nothing could describe it but itself. It wasn't sad,. the slow movement; only troubled, hesitant, exactly as he often felt himself. Then came- and he would sometimes laugh aloud- the final, fast movement.
Though the slow movement's question had never quite been answered, all the threat was still there, the fast movement started with absurd self-confidence, with some huffings and puffings, and then the first horn set off with delightful bravado, like a fat man on skates who hadn't skated in years (but not like a fat man on skates, like nothing but itself), Woo-woo-woo-woops! and the spectator horns laughed tiggledy-tiggledy tiggledy!, or that was vaguely the idea- every slightly wrong chord, every swoop, every hand-stop changed everything completely ... It was impossible to say what , precisely, he meant.[/i]
I've always had this vision of God, enlightenment, the Tao as being right next to my right ear, always just inches away. I could never see it directly. When I turned my head, it moved too. The only way to see it was through my peripheral vision. Peripheral vision is different from normal vision. It isn't focused. I pay a different kind of attention to things in my peripheral vision than I do with normal vision. I think that's a good metaphor for how we can experience the Tao.
Quoting Amity
I see the TTC as poetry, which I read differently than I do prose. It feels like I use a different part of my mind when I read or listen to poetry. Yes, it's more like music. Less focused. Impressionistic. As I think about it, that's similar to the kind of attention I pay when I'm seeing through my peripheral vision.
Quoting Amity
I've tried to make my position on this clear from the beginning - our aim is to experience the experience just as with the French horn music in the passage I quoted.
I think it can happen, but why fear this? Understanding the TTC is still not the Tao. It’s just a key to experiencing it. And at the end of the day, any perfect performance of the entire original score would pass by undistinguished by anyone unfamiliar with the score anyway. So if all you can manage is the right hand of the piano part, it’s still better than just bashing the keys randomly with your fists. If that one bit is where you stay, that’s fine. Progress isn’t everything. The music is still beautiful, and it allows anyone to join in with the same or another part as harmony. That’s the beauty of the framework (Te) in relation to the Tao - it is, as the title says, eternal.
Quoting T Clark
I love this bit. Every time I’ve tried to describe the framework idea in the TTC, whether I use the analogy of a piece of music or a tesseract or a cascade, this kind of disclaimer is always in parentheses in the back of my mind: but not like that, like nothing but itself.
What a beautiful passage.
I read the book at least 35 years ago, but I've never forgotten that passage. Why can't I write like that?
Ellen Marie Chen
[i]On the decline of the great Tao,
There are humanity (jen) and righteousness (i).
When intelligence (hui) and knowledge (chih) appear,
There is great artificiality (wei).
When the six relations are not in harmony,
There are filial piety (hsiao) and parental love (tz'u).
When a nation is in darkness (hun) and disorder (lüan),
There are loyal ministers.[/i]
Addiss and Lombardo
[i]Great Tao rejected: Benevolence and righteousness appear.
Learning and knowledge professed: Great Hypocrites spring up.
Family relations forgotten: Filial piety and affection arise.
The nation disordered: Patriots come forth.[/i]
I used this verse in my discussion of Verse 17, so some issues with this verse have been discussed before. In particular, there was an extensive discussion how to characterize the relationships between the Tao and human values. I have called them “ladders” because I see the human values as inferior to the Tao. @Possibility has called them “cascades” because she sees the human values as part of the Tao. This is where you correct me, Possibility.
I see four ladders here. I guess I would characterize them as moral, intellectual, social, and political. The human values described include humanity, knowledge, filial piety, and loyalty. Here is a line by line discussion of Chen’s translation.
[b][i]On the decline of the great Tao,
There are humanity (jen) and righteousness (i).[/i][/b]
As I did for Verse 17, I reference Derek Lin’s translation of Verse 38.
[i]Therefore, the Tao is lost, and then virtue
Virtue is lost, and then benevolence
Benevolence is lost, and then righteousness
Righteousness is lost, and then etiquette[/i]
This is a more detailed description of what I’ve called the moral ladder. The verse goes on to say.
[i]Those who have etiquette
Are a thin shell of loyalty and sincerity[/i]
I think this is an indication that the elements of the ladder are hierarchical, i.e. top is better than bottom. Yes, I am aware of Lao Tzu’s thoughts on good vs. bad. From Chen Verse 2.
[i]When all under heaven know beauty (mei) as beauty,
There is then ugliness (o);
When all know the good (shan) good,
There is then the not good (pu shan).[/i]
I’m comfortable living with that contradiction.
[b][i]When intelligence (hui) and knowledge (chih) appear,
There is great artificiality (wei).[/i][/b]
The TTC makes a strong case against knowledge and rational thought. This from Addiss and Lombardo Verse 48.
Pursue knowledge, gain daily. Pursue Tao, lose daily. Lose and again lose, Arrive at non-doing.
This is from Chen Verse 3.
[i]Therefore, when the sage rules:
He empties the minds (hsin) of his people,
Fills their bellies,
Weakens their wills (chih),
And strengthens their bones.
Always he keeps his people in no-knowledge (wu-chih) and no-desire (wu-yü),[/i]
Letting go of knowledge is related to letting go of desire. Knowledge and desire are connected.
[b][i]When the six relations are not in harmony,
There are filial piety (hsiao) and parental love (tz'u).[/i][/b]
I went looking for the “six relations.” Traditionally China has complex conventions of family structure. Wikipedia identifies eight relations in the immediate family – father, mother, brother, sister, husband, wife, son, and daughter. I’m not sure if this is what the text is referring too or not.
[b][i]When a nation is in darkness (hun) and disorder (lüan),
There are loyal ministers.[/i][/b]
As they say, patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. “Loyalty” is one of those funny words. In the TTC, sometimes it’s good and sometimes it’s bad. In this case it’s bad because it represents conventional virtue.
?
Well, considering the Tao is all-inclusive, I don’t see how they can not be part of the Tao. What is described here are human values when they exclude awareness of the Tao.
Quoting T Clark
When we lose sight of Tao, all we have is Te: the framework for morality and virtue, or instructions for a benevolent life. When we have no understanding of Te (having already lost sight of Tao), all we have is benevolence as the pinnacle of achievement, the exemplar. When we cannot grasp what benevolence is (having long since given up on the aim of virtue, let alone Tao), the pinnacle is considered to be righteousness. And when we don’t understand what righteousness is, we figure that etiquette, or formal politeness, is the thing to strive for. It’s not a moral ladder, but a reduction in awareness of our capacity.
‘A thin shell of loyalty and sincerity’ is not really a judgement of inferiority - that’s affect talking. Someone who strives for etiquette simply doesn’t understand how to be benevolently sincere if they can’t be polite about it. They’re not working from a framework of morality and virtue, so any moral judgement is unfair.
I’ve already explained my understanding of the good-bad relation in verse 2. If someone sees etiquette as the highest good, then when there is no formal/polite way to be sincere they are not sincere, and for them, there’s nothing bad about that. You would need to help them understand a more complex framework of morality and virtue before they can see sincerity as a quality of goodness that transcends etiquette.
This appearance of being against knowledge relates back to intentionality and wu-wei.
This is where relying on English translations can lead us astray. We translate a character into ‘knowledge’ and assume that it refers to the entire concept of knowledge, rather than one qualitative aspect or idea of what knowledge is or means in human experience.
Verse 3 is not about keeping the people quiet, but about enabling them to exist and interact free of war and discord, in a state of peace. Zhì can be translated simply as ‘will’, but it refers more accurately to ambition: the mark or record that we desire to make upon the world as individuals. And zh? can be translated simply as ‘to know’, but it more accurately refers to the illusion of power that knowledge brings: to notify, inform or be in charge of. So wu-zh? and wu-yü refer to a letting go of being ruled by knowledge and affect: acting simply because we CAN or because we WANT to.
Back to verse 18, I want to make a distinction here between two character pairs in Chinese that both translate as ‘wisdom’, but refer to different qualities. The one used here, zh?-hui, separately translated as intelligence and knowledge, refers to externally perceived wisdom as a mark of respect, a recognition of power. The other is zh?-dao, which seems to refer to internal wisdom as more of a capacity, or knowing-the-way. Wisdom isn’t just about knowing information or appearing intelligent, it’s about knowing when to act and when not to, regardless of how it makes us look in terms of intelligence or capability. Which then relates to your quote from verse 48: serving the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake (or ours) is different from pursuing an understanding of the Way.
In my view, the TTC is not against knowledge and rational thought - it’s against revering knowledge for its own sake or as an illusion of power, and against acting on knowledge simply because we can or want to.
Great falseness, in my mind, refers to the assumption that an action is right because it is proven effective; or that we should do something because we can. Might does not make right.
Well, that's one problem. This is from Derek Lin's translation of Verse 1.
[i]Thus, constantly free of desire
One observes its wonders
Constantly filled with desire
One observes its manifestations
These two emerge together but differ in name
The unity is said to be the mystery
Mystery of mysteries, the door to all wonders[/i]
This says that the Tao and the 10,000 things are a unity. Others don't say it as explicitly. I'm not sure there is a difference between them.
Quoting Possibility
I really don't get what you're trying to say.
Quoting Possibility
Forget Taoism for a moment, in a conventional way of looking at things, don't we understand reality without having to identify every little piece of it?
Quoting Possibility
We've discussed this before, although we had some disagreement, the TTC recognizes self-identify, self. I don't see any conflict.
Quoting Possibility
I like to think that experiencing the Tao is possible without formal meditative practice. That may well be because I am really lazy.
Quoting Possibility
Sorry. I'm lost again.
No, I don’t believe it does. It says that the Tao is the unity, the mystery, the door to all wonders. The difference between observing its wonders or its manifestations is whether we relate to the Tao as a relational structure of qualitative experience, free of desire or identity, or as one of 10,000 quantifiable things.
Quoting T Clark
The 10,000 things is not just what we do as humans - consolidation, or quantifying by setting arbitrary energy limits on qualitative relations, is basically how the universe has formed.
Quoting T Clark
Do you think that we really understand reality?
Quoting T Clark
So long as this ‘self’ is recognised as consisting of qualitative human experience (ie. not just as an intellectual capacity) inclusive of the pain, humiliating lack and inevitable loss that comes from actually living and dying. FWIW, I don’t think it’s a conflict, it’s a glossing over of unknown relational structure - a clumsy relation disguised by metaphorical language.
Quoting T Clark
I think it’s possible, too - but I think it’s a much more challenging process that still involves controlled experiences of pain, humiliation and loss. The idea is to experience the limits of our human capacity: to push past the influence of affect and explore in detail where thought and feeling meets the will, or where conception meets interoception head-on. Without an experiential understanding of this, we’re just playing with metaphorical language, or going on someone else’s best guess, and we have to admit that we simply don’t know.
I struggled with this one initially, too. When I googled it, I found references to six close relatives, namely: father, mother, older brothers, younger brothers, wife, and male children. I would imagine your Wikipedia version has been edited to avoid a charge of sexism, but the two characters liu-qin together refer collectively to ‘one's kin’.
I would say that this IS what the text is referring to. Even if your immediate family are in conflict, then you are still required to uphold filial pity - seen not as a choice in Chinese culture but an obligation between parent and child, the most basic and important tenet of society, at one point punishable by beheading.
Quoting T Clark
Again, it’s not ‘bad’ except in relation to awareness of a more complex framework of virtue and morality. Very few characters in the TTC are definitively good or bad, because they express the quality of an idea, not the value of a concept. The TTC constructs an entire framework from the bare basics of social structure to the virtue of the sage, and passes no judgement by assuming where you, the reader, might be.
Confucius refers to both filial piety and loyal ministers as the same basic foundation of society. When the nation or society is in entire disarray, these basic virtues must still exist. They’re non-negotiable. This truth can be as much a source of hope as despair, depending on the current state or society you’re living in.
For a quick paraphrase (6:42)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxmmEpWyONg
For detailed evaluation of the hidden structure. Discussion with students (32:43)
First, looking for repeating characters in same position in this short 8 line verse.
Then each line explained, along with a bit of history re Ancient Chinese poetry..
Part 1 - ( Benevolence)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xaooF42YUWk
Part 2 - ( Natural Goodness) - 1:07:59
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAC5KEZY3_k
Overall Concept:
Life patterns
Balance
Unconventional thinking
And recap of the primary concepts:
Benevolence
Righteousness
Wisdom
Harmony
With implications and ideas related to modern life. The Situation and the Response.
Life patterns repeated throughout history, the present and futuristic visions.
Bad v good guys in film.
Balance and counter balance in humanity trying to establish equilibrium or peace.
At different connecting levels.
Tea breaks required.
Yes, I used misleading language. Action, wu wei, including what we might call moral behavior, can come directly from the Tao. I'm not sure exactly how that works yet. As I said, it may have to do with te. That process is superior to conventional morality.
Quoting Possibility
That's not how I see Te, although I'm still working on it. My best understanding is that Te is the working of Tao through us in the world. So, it's not a step down to Te or, if it is, it's inevitable. It's how we are connected to the Tao. I recognize that the language about this is ambiguous. I agree with everything else in this paragraph.
Quoting Possibility
Sure, calling anything on the ladder inferior is unfair. I've had this argument before. Lao Tzu doesn't make judgements. But... I'm not Lao Tzu so I'm allowed to. "A thin shell of loyalty and sincerity" is not as good as wu wei. Etiquette can, and often does, hide hypocrisy and deceit.
As I wrote previously, knowledge seems to be connected to desire. I guess striving for knowledge is like striving for success, acclaim, or power. I think you can see in this thread, and really throughout the forum, that intellect, rationality, is a barrier to the message of the TTC.
Quoting Possibility
I can't speak to the specific translation points you're making, but this understanding makes sense to me.
Quoting Possibility
So, you're making a distinction between knowledge and knowledge acquired for "ulterior" motives, i.e. acclaim or power. Is that right? I have no problem with that, but I think there's more to it. Knowledge, rational understanding, distracts us from the Tao. It leads us in the wrong direction.
We'll leave this for now. I'm not sure where I stand.
Quoting Possibility
As I've said elsewhere, to me, it is humanity that creates the 10,000 things by naming them. I've had discussions about this before with people who disagree. They think the naming happens differently, although how has always been an open question. This is an area where I am not certain.
Quoting Possibility
Sure. Not completely, but in a way that helps us live our lives. In a sense, living our lives is how we understand reality.
Quoting Possibility
I'm ok with this meaning for self, except that, "a clumsy relation disguised by metaphorical language" is a pretty good definition of all human understanding.
Quoting Possibility
For me, "great falseness" means insincerity, hypocrisy, deceit.
Yes, the Tao is the unity, but the Tao and the 10,000 things are the same. That's the mystery. As I wrote, this is a good example of the TTC's ambiguity.
Quoting Possibility
I think maybe Lao Tzu would agree with you. I'm not sure. But that's not how I've always seen it. As I've written, I've always seen as creating the 10,000 things as something humans have done, are doing, by naming and using language. This is a work in progress for me.
Quoting Possibility
My strategy is to sit here in my lounge chair, drink iced coffee in the morning and beer in the afternoon, argue with people on the web, swim at the Y, and wait for enlightenment to find me. So far, so good.
And, as I've said, "playing with metaphorical language" is everything we do when we think. There is hope, I guess, that experiencing the Tao can help us go beyond that. The Tao that can be expressed in metaphorical language is not the eternal Tao.
Well, I think I'm all caught up through the beginning of Verse 18. I'll keep chugging away.
The way I see it, te is the self-conscious process by which our relation to the Tao produces action/wu-wei/moral behaviour; meditation works to restructure the conscious process to enable the Tao to be more effective at an intuitive level; but sometimes we find actions or processes that just work for us personally, and sometimes it happens by chance, that everything just aligns and chi flows without obstruction. If we’re paying attention, if we’re looking for it, we can relate directly to the Tao in these moments - and it feels unequivocally free and natural, pure and honest. Zero resistance.
Quoting T Clark
That makes sense where you’re coming from. I don’t think of it as a step down - here, Lao Tzu describes it more as an empty framework, like interpreting the TTC as a moral code of behaviour, instead of as a relational structure for experiencing the Tao. I think the idea is that when we embody Te, we can directly experience the Tao.
Quoting T Clark
This is why the ladder doesn’t work for me. I try not to give myself permission to articulate judgements, or to interpret the TTC for others in this way. I think it has the effect of blocking chi. I will agree that what you’re saying makes sense, but I think you’re putting judgements in Lao Tzu’s mouth by interpreting the TTC in this way. Wu-wei isn’t just not-doing, but also not-thinking and not-saying: recognising our own intentions and desire in relation to potential events, and acting only on those that will keep the chi flowing freely, despite what might work best for ourselves. It’s less direct, sure. But that’s the idea.
I think it's the other way around - when the natural relationships among family members break down, then you get filial piety. Filial piety is seen as inferior to natural relations.
Quoting Possibility
Again, I think it's the other way around. When natural relationships are in disarray, inferior, conventional relations fill their place.
I read this differently than you and Possibility.
The need to exclaim virtues is neither an effort to replace the natural with conventional virtues nor a conflict within families made necessary by dire circumstances. The loss came from not being able to talk about it as a loss when it was happening. That idea had not been minted yet.
It can be a barrier, sure. But I think rejecting entire concepts, such as intellect or rationality, is as much a mistake as rejecting knowledge. Rationality can be a barrier only when it excludes affect: when we argue that knowledge and desire are mutually exclusive, or that any action we take can be considered free from affect. But rationality can be a way of structuring information in order to observe affect. One could argue that the TTC is a structure of rationality in itself.
Quoting T Clark
The translation comes from cross-referencing the individual characters in Google Translate. When you type in ‘knowledge’ in English, the various Chinese characters offered give a sense of the different qualitative aspects of knowledge recognised in Chinese language, of which zh? is only one.
Quoting T Clark
Not just for ulterior motives, but also for its own sake. Rationality is what the TTC is, in itself, prior to any relation to it. Isolated, it is nothing. Only when we embody its structure can we relate to the Tao. But it does tempt us to exclude affect and focus on the 10,000 things in isolation - which I agree can be construed as the wrong direction.
I maintain that any ambiguity is in our interpretation, not in the structure, of the TTC. The mystery, in my mind, is the difference. Because they are NOT the same, and yet we have no way of distinguishing between them, because we cannot BE the unity, nor describe it, we can only qualitatively experience or relate to it as an embodiment of Te.
Quoting T Clark
I get where you’re coming from. My understanding of this doesn’t come from the TTC, but from the rest of my philosophical journey - trying to make sense of a ToE. I found that the conflicts I had been having - mainly to do with language and a qualitative-quantitative aspect dichotomy - seemed to dissolve in the structure of the TTC.
Quoting T Clark
This reminds me again of verse 14:
Quoting Possibility
I guess the way I see it, at some point thinking and waiting in hope just isn’t enough. We’re capable of more than that. We can look beyond the metaphorical language and piece together the rational structure on which our qualitative experience hangs. Either that, or stop trying to understand it and simply allow the Tao to work through the emptiness of a meditative mind. For me, playing with the metaphorical language is an attempt to retain an intellectual illusion of control. The TTC lays out how you can go beyond that, regardless of your level of awareness or intellect: embody the structure of Te.
I get that, but I don’t think what I’m saying is the other way around. I don’t think I’ve explained myself very well here. You don’t ‘get filial piety’, it doesn’t ‘fill the place’ as if it wasn’t there before. It was always there - the base level of any human relation. And I don’t think he’s referring to ‘natural relationships among family members’ breaking down. Filial piety IS the ‘natural’ or basic relationship, according to Chinese culture. Every other relationship is part of a social, moral, political or ideological construct or convention.
To be honest, I think we may have a different understanding of ‘natural’ and ‘conventional’, which probably contributes to the confusion...
Quoting Valentinus
Well, this definitely shows that I didn’t explain myself very well, because I agree with you here. I don’t think it’s a matter of replacing virtues at all. It has to do with awareness. We take our most complex relationship structures for granted. So, without a framework for virtue, only the example of the old masters, when these relations broke down, all they could do was cling to what remained. They had no way to build it back up again.
[my emphasis]
This makes sense to me. As far as I can tell, the TTC is as rich in concepts as it is in metaphors which try to explain them and how the practical aspects of the concepts play out.
Quoting Possibility
Yes. We bring our own experiences to any text as we read and try to relate to it. To see if if has any value to us in the way we lead our lives. If it makes sense. I think that this can work both ways.
For us, as we build on a view which has worked for us and others along the way.
Against us, if we try to fit text in to what we think is right, or our own perspective. Even if we do get beyond our own cages and pick up book which at first glance doesn't hold much appeal.
How would you persuade someone to read the TTC ?
How would you describe how conflicts might 'dissolve in the structure of the TTC' ?
Quoting Possibility
In this discussion, we have not only had to try to understand the language of the TTC but also our own ways of explaining what the TTC means or its potential implications for guiding self, family, community, country, the world...
Metaphors are useful - up to a point. If they are used 'in an attempt to retain an intellectual illusion of control' and there is a mixing and matching then it can muddy the waters.
The TTC, as far as I recall, tries to tell us to be patient and allow the mud to settle to regain clarity
( I think V15 ).
So, yes, there is a laying out as to the 'How' - a guide. I think I have missed a lot along the away...
In the lengthy video of Ch18, Derek Lin - in the final 7 minutes or so, talking about the last line, refers to the ministers as also being 'ministers' of our self. The 3 main aspects to care for: physical, mental and spiritual. How we need to balance all three together holistically for wellbeing; to maintain some kind of order.
It gladdened my heart to hear it. It provided important positive feedback to something I said earlier re V17 and the levels. Nobody here seemed to consider this.
Perhaps lost in the muddy waters...
Quoting Amity
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/519719
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/519731
Yes, in Chinese culture it is of 'supreme importance' as Derek Lin discusses at length.
Out of all the virtues, this is the first and foremost.
He asks the students to consider why this might be so. Interesting responses and good feedback.
Ch18 Lines 5 and 6. From about 36 mins in.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAC5KEZY3_k
Quoting Possibility
Is te self-conscious? I haven't figured that out for myself. I am certainly aware of an experience I interpret as wu wei arising from within me. I've described that before - I feel a well of wordless intention bubbling up within me from beneath the conscious surface.
Quoting Possibility
If you are implying I interpret the TTC as a moral code, that's not true. It's one of the ambiguities of the TTC. The moral code that can be spoken is not the eternal moral code. Lao Tzu says "Hey, you guys, there is no good or bad, but you know, etiquette sucks."
Quoting Possibility
As I've noted, I'm still working on this.
Quoting Possibility
I am not interpreting the TTC for others and we're all putting judgements in Lao Tzu's mouth. When you come down to it, we're discussing a book that starts out "This book is about something that can't be talked about," and then proceeds to talk about it for 81 verses. We're all allowed some leeway.
This is not how I see it. There is a natural, sincere, spontaneous way of behaving in accordance with our inner natures, wu wei. When we lose that capacity because of fear, socialization, whatever; conventional behavior - benevolence, etiquette - replaces it. That's a bad thing.
Quoting Valentinus
I don't understand.
Let's try this out - there is a fundamental and unavoidable conflict between intellect and wu wei. I don't know if I believe that or not.
Quoting Possibility
I don't see this. The TTC is not rational or irrational. It's non-rational. There is no structure. The structure that can be structured is not the eternal structure. Sorry.
Quoting Possibility
But affect is one of the 10,000 things.
I can't tell if we're disagreeing or not. I don't think I understand the difference between interpretation and the structure of the TTC.
Quoting Possibility
Is "ToE" theory of everything? For me, the TTC is a theory of everything. You know, the Tao and all. The everything that can be named is not the eternal everything. Please stop me.
Quoting Possibility
Thinking and waiting in hope - bad. Stop trying to understand it and simply allow the Tao to work through the emptiness of a meditative mind - good.
Quoting Possibility
I think any use of language is an attempt to retain an intellectual illusion of control. Or maybe I don't think that.
It is my understanding that's what Confucius thinks, not Lao Tzu. I think rejecting that view is what this verse is about.
Quoting Possibility
Natural - wu wei. Conventional - artificial, unspontaneous. Natural - good. Conventional - bad.
I think I'm all caught up. Please let me know if I've failed to respond to any of your posts.
As I noted in a response to @Possibility, it is my understanding this is a Confucian view which Lao Tzu was specifically reacting against.
Yes. I see that the guidance given in the TTC attempts to reverse conventional views held at that time.
It seems to resist a second-order moral way in preference to a first-order 'natural' way.
Can we be sure that this is best for our selves and others?
What is 'natural' ? Is a question I raised earlier.
Is the TTC with its apparent reliance on natural intuition right for a progressive world ? Part of nature is to grow and develop...over and above some of our natural inclinations...and that requires some guidance...the TTC might be seen as just another dogmatism...
There are many 'natural' ways. Arguably, we are social animals with reason who need to establish ways of living together. This does not always come naturally. Conventions of some description are necessary.
From https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/daoism/
[ emphasis added ]
If the Tao Te Ching grabs you and shakes you and tells you and if you say, "Yes, this is exactly right. I've always known this," then, yes, you can be sure.
Quoting Amity
Natural is wu wei. No action and action without action. Spontaneous. Growing from within, from our truest self. The TTC is useful, if it is, no matter where or when you are. What is a "progressive world?" If you mean a complex modern world like the one we live in, then yes, it can be useful. If it works, it works. If it doesn't, there are lots of other ways to know the world.
Quoting Amity
Conventions can be useful, but Lao Tzu says they are not necessary. I think he's right, which doesn't mean I know how to do it.
I don't think the TTC says we have to try to escape from social life and conventions. Lao Tzu said "Do or do not. There is no 'try.'" Wait, no... that was Yoda.
I haven't read much of the Zhuangzi. It's mostly stories. A lot of the power of the TTC for me is in its poetry. Maybe we can take up the Zhuangzi if we finish the TTC.
I love it, I have no criticism about it. It is sort of romantic in a sense.
What book is that? So I may explore it for myself.
The book is the Tao Te Ching by Lao Tzu. If you go back to the first page in this thread and read the first couple of posts, it gives a rundown. There is also a link to a bunch of translations. The specific text you quoted is from Stephen Mitchell's translation of Verse 80.
I will continue to warn against consolidating concepts and settling for metaphorical language in the TTC. I think that we limit our ability to understand the TTC for what it is if we’re unable to observe how affect evaluates an idea prior to action. Concepts and metaphors tend to obscure this process, although I understand that we’re more comfortable discussing literature in this way. I’m not suggesting we abandon any talk of concepts or metaphors, only that we’re conscious of the obscurity that comes with it. So, when we talk about ‘knowledge’, for instance, we recognise that the TTC is not referring to the entire concept of knowledge, including our overall evaluation of it as ‘good’ or ‘bad’, but only one qualitative aspect of it, and any affect or judgement of ‘good’ or ‘bad’ is our own or the interpreter’s.
I suggested written music as an analogy (not a metaphor) for the TTC. Written music is an arrangement of variable sound quality into a rational structure. There is no affect in a written piece of music. I compared this to music performance, in which one cannot clearly delineate between structure or quality (contributed to a performance by the score) and affect (contributed by either the musician in interpreting the score or the observer in interpreting the performance).
Quoting Amity
The TTC is one of those books that reflects the saying: ‘when the student is ready, the teacher will appear’. It was pretty poetry to me for a long time - a collection of metaphors, which ‘spoke’ to me of a flow to existence that I wasn’t in a position to understand...yet. Later reading of it seemed to me a profound, intuitive truth - I could see that it made sense but not how, and sensed that embracing the truth could eliminate resistance, conflict and barriers in the way I related to the world...somehow.
It wasn’t until I began to notice the difference between quantitative and qualitative structures, and how they relate to the way we understand, articulate and interact with reality, that I eventually recognised the unique appeal of the TTC. Attempts by Whitehead, Russell, Pierce, etc to make the English language more logical struggled because we’ve already constructed most of our language concepts socially, culturally and politically according to affect, long before we were even aware of logic. Words have meaning inclusive of their value and potential based on qualitative aspects of our past experiences. So we can’t simply remove ‘emotion’ from a concept, or ignore the way we subjectively attribute value and significance to concepts. When we do that, we discard information.
Quantum theory, and its conflict with General Relativity’s quantification of gravity, highlighted for me the neglect of qualitative structural significance in modern science. Gravity is as much a qualitative structure as a quantitative one, with an aspect of valence (attention or attraction) and an aspect of arousal (effort or energy). So, too, any accurate interpretation of quantum mechanics is incomplete without accounting for time as a 4D quality and human intention, as attention and effort (ie. affect).
Kant’s aesthetics explored qualitative feeling in relation to objects, concepts and ideas, with the aim of determining an underlying rational structure. It is only at the level of the ‘aesthetic idea’ that he could transcend human judgement (affect) and explore the interaction between rational structure and quality. And it is here that I find the TTC, using a rational language structure and traditional Chinese characters that each encapsulate an aesthetic idea, finds an unexpected ally.
The TTC’s parsing of reality into affect, qualitative and quantitative structure seems to me a useful heuristic device in this context.
The need to call out and name virtues is related to wanting to continue receiving the benefit of what had been nurtured previously without need of names. We use names for other purposes and that is okay. So much so that naming un-naming is also good. But that beneficial practice is not being made equal to what did not need a name at the beginning.
Now look who’s behind...
I wanted to mention this comment quickly, because you also mentioned it in response to @Amity’s comment. I do agree that these verses can be seen as arguing against Confucius ideology, which espouses the virtues of benevolence, righteousness, knowledge, etiquette, obedience, loyalty and - highest of all - filial piety. But it’s more than this: Lao Tzu is commenting on the prevailing culture - what was commonly accepted as ‘truth’. My point was that it was not simply an alternative of possible points of view.
This interesting commentary from Charles Wu’s 2013 translation of verse 18 (thanks again for the Terebess website):
Quoting Charles Q Wu, ‘This Spoke Laozi’
I think when we embody Te, we can do so through stillness (meditation), intuitively (your example of wu-wei) or self-consciously.
Quoting T Clark
I’m not implying that you interpret it this way. I only mention it because I have noticed this interpretation in a number of translations. ‘Do this, don’t do that’ is not the structure of the TTC, despite how many translation are structured. I think Lao Tzu says ‘etiquette is not a something to strive for in itself, good or bad’.
Quoting T Clark
We’re putting words into Lao Tzu’s mouth, sure. But to assume he’s passing judgement, declaring something as ‘good’ or ‘bad’, is a mistake. Daoism also recognises that everything is connected, and so in every action we take - whether it’s interpreting the TTC on a public forum or in our private behaviour - we are still responsible for how it impacts on others. The first line is not a contradiction: the book does not claim to be about the Tao, but an eternal framework through which we can relate to its mystery. It is ultimately about Te.
I’m not sure what you’re ‘trying out’ here.
I don't understand.
Quoting Possibility
He's saying exactly what I was trying to say? Especially in the first paragraph. I need to work on being clearer.
I keep coming back to this - Lao Tzu doesn't make judgements about good and bad or even good and ok. Except that he does. I don't think he's changing his mind, I think he's being ambiguous. That's how things are set up in the TTC. I have a feeling that it's found in the original documents and is not just an artifact of translation. I will be disappointed if I find out I'm wrong about that.
Quoting Possibility
Is wu wei better than benevolence and etiquette? Of course not!!! We don't make that kind of judgement. (whispering - Of course it is!)
Quoting Possibility
Not sure that I understand. Are you saying I'm responsible for the impacts my interpretations of the TTC have on others? That doesn't make sense.
I used confusing language. I was saying there is a fundamental and unavoidable conflict between intellect and wu wei.
You seem to be arguing that every noun I use corresponds to a ‘thing’, and is therefore NOT the Tao. I think it’s important to point out that I’m not referring to the Tao here, but to the TTC, which (as I mentioned) claims to be the disembodied (eternal) Te, which is not the Tao. To argue that the TTC has no structure is ridiculous. It’s not ineffable, it’s a text.
But I’m not arguing that the TTC is rational as in opposed to irrational - it just refers to being within the human capacity for understanding and imagination, without appeal to affect or judgement. There’s no conflict here.
Quoting T Clark
My use of the term ‘affect’ here is not in reference to a ‘thing’, but to our influence in the flow or distribution of energy (chi). It is not one of the 10,000 things, but refers to elusive relation between the 10,000 things (or disembodied Te) and the eternal Tao. I realise that by naming it, I take a step towards consolidating something. But the affect that can be named is not identical to what I mean by ‘affect’, if that makes sense. Language doesn’t help us here. What I mean by ‘affect’ corresponds to the human faculty of judgement (a la Kant).
Yes. I see the analogy for both being rational structures.
Written music is a guide as to what and how the notes are to be played.
At the highest level of performance e.g. in an orchestra, the interpretation of the score is given overall by the conductor. The quality or skill requires careful training compared to an individual who might have an innate talent - as in 'playing by ear'.
Not every musician can read a musical score; it is like a foreign language to them.
Most famously - the Beatles.
https://socurrent.com/top-5-musicians-who-couldnt-read-music/
This might be termed as 'pure' or a 'natural' excellence or 'virtuosity' - the equivalent of 'de'.
They are simply inspired to make 'noise' to express their thoughts and feelings.
There is no intermediary physical 'score' to follow, other than what is in their mind.
The members of the audience are not mere 'observers', but yes, there is an affect or a powerful effect and interaction. When we look from the performers' stage we can see this crowd of one-ness., waving arms or lights. They too can be 'conducted' either by the performer or spontaneously...
I don't know where I am going with this.
Only I suppose it is to say that I agree the TTC is a rational structure. I would add that it is objectively a normative structure that guides us to travel in a certain direction - to follow the Way.
This needs to be interpreted. This requires the mind and its powerful intellect as well as some kind of an intuitive 'feel'. This discussion, I think, includes both.
There is also descriptive imagery which is not normative - it is interpreted in a natural way by just looking and appreciating.
It is not an either/or but both.
We have the chance to choose a translation and interpret it by self or with others.
Any way we choose is 'natural'.
I have more to think about but that's all for now...
Thanks.
The structure of the TTC is the original structure, consisting of Chinese characters (each signifying the quality of an idea) arranged in a particular logical sequence. Interpretation is how we rearrange this structure, ie. in English.
Quoting T Clark
This judgment is your interpretation. The structure includes a number of options, including thinking and waiting in hope.
Quoting T Clark
Not necessarily.
Thanks for relating your experience of reading and understanding the TTC.
My first physical book was aesthetically appealing and I enjoyed the poetry. I didn't really understand even this relatively simple translations. I dipped in to the 'sea' without full immersion.
Right now, I am struggling in this discussion.
I don't know what further 'truth' there is to be embraced in the TCC.
I have already experienced and absorbed e.g. the importance of quality and holistic care.
However, I am sticking with it; the discussion is valuable and is making an impact.
I appreciate your explanations and would be grateful for an example of how it changed the way you relate to the world... also @T Clark.
Quoting Possibility
Yes. Concepts are the abstract ideas which originate in the mind which is 'moved' by a need to categorise and express the way things are. There is bound to be subjectivity involved in choice and usage. I am not sure this is the same as involving 'emotion' which is an intuitive feeling...but...
Perhaps it is, in the sense of 'desire' to justify our choice that we 'feel' is right...
I have read that the important concept of de can be translated as 'virtue' or 'power'.
Also, that the combination of dao with de ( dao-de) means ethics.
I look forward to further discussion and elucidation, if not enlightenment.
I value your insight here and agree.
In the Derek Lin video, he asks the question:
Is it a positive thing to emphasise virtues like 'filial piety' ?
The answer is 'not necessarily' due to 4 reasons:
1. If we have to emphasise it, then we have already lost the natural touch
2. If we have to be reminded and work at it, then it is no longer effortless to be virtuous
3. It can be fake, pretentious and artificial
4. Recognising and rewarding this kind of virtue gives rise to competition
He uses the same pattern with the other concepts in Chapter 18.
Re 1 and 2: I think that being 'virtuous' can require both aspects; natural and positive action
Re 3 and 4: I think 'Yes but So what ?' - isn't that part of nature...
I am not persuaded by these arguments. Is that what the TTC argues for ?
I don’t agree with this. I think intellect that assumes a linear causal relation between potentiality and action is bound to conflict with wu-wei. But this is neither unavoidable nor fundamental. I think intellect that understands the dimensional or many-to-one relational structure between potentiality (or more specifically intentionality) and action has no conflict with wu-wei.
Quoting T Clark
I’d like to explore your evidence for this. I would argue that what looks like ‘changing his mind’ stems from the choice of concepts in the English translations, not from Lao Tzu being deliberately vague. I think if that were the case, he would not be so repetitive with characters. If you explore the literal, character-by-character translations, you will notice that most characters can be translated with both/either positive or negative affect/judgement inherent in the variety of English words. Where translators take this is often a matter of ulterior motive or assumption.
For instance, the next two verses begin with the character jué, which Google translates as ‘absolutely’, also translated as ‘mostly’, ‘extremely’, as well as ‘awfully’ - but TTC translators assume an imperative tone, so they translate this as the verb ‘to cut off’. While I’m inclined (as I’m sure you are) to go with a clearly overwhelming majority here, I’m nevertheless confused by the particular quality of this character/idea. It is definitely not used to mean stop, cease, reject or abandon (as most translators seem to interpret), except at the point of excess - like a bartender ‘cutting off’ an inebriated patron. I think this has subtle implications for how we interpret verses 19 and 20, particularly as they also pertain to the virtues of Confucius and the pursuit of ‘knowledge’, which I have argued here that Lao Tzu has not rejected as such, but rather argued against the utmost significance assigned to them.
So, does the TTC have a structure? Am I mixing the TTC up with the Tao? First off, of course the TTC has a structure - 81 verses. First 37 are about Tao. 38 through 81 are about te. Another question. I think it's a different one - does the TTC provide an intellectual structure by which we can comprehend the Tao? I don't think it does. I don't think it can. There is no intellectual structure by which we can comprehend the Tao. Do I really believe that? Vehemently, fiercely, indisputably! Most of the time.
Quoting Possibility
I've always had a problem with your use of "affect." You mean something different when you say it than I do. It seems like maybe you use it to mean something similar to attention. Attention could be said to be the result me putting my personal energy into an aspect of the world. Highlighting it. Making it separate from the rest of the world. I guess that could be similar to naming in a sense. I have no idea what I'm talking about.
Your interpretation is that wu-wei is better than benevolence and etiquette. That makes sense from your experience and understanding of the world, and from my personal experience I would agree with you. But it’s not a judgement made by the TTC, and so I think it’s irresponsible to claim that the TTC or Lao Tzu makes this judgement, because it doesn’t: we do. It’s like claiming that the Bible says homosexuality is wrong. Just because people agree on an interpretation, does not make the interpretation true.
Quoting T Clark
You’re responsible for the choices you make to block or enable the flow of chi in the world. This is not about what others do with the information you provide, but about your capacity to inform/deny, connect/isolate, and collaborate/exclude. Wu-wei is about recognising your influence of chi at the level of potentiality: the changes you effect without action; the influence you have on the world that cannot be directly attributed to you in a linear causal relation. With great power comes great responsibility. Just because no-one can blame me for misinformation, does not absolve me of responsibility - not according to wu-wei. If that means the TTC appears to lack confidence or seems ambiguous, I’m okay with that - it’s consistent with the example of the old masters. I don’t think it IS ambiguous, I think he’s being more accurate, not less.
We've had this discussion. For better or worse, I have decided that it makes sense for me to accept the translations we have of the TTC as a group as the basis of my understanding of what Lao Tzu is telling us. It's a good statistical method. Look at a lot of samples of the population and assume that will allow you to average out errors in the individual samples. That won't address systematic errors that affect all of the samples, but I've decided I can live with that.
Quoting Possibility
Yes, of course it's my interpretation, one that I think I have good justification for. Waiting in hope? As I've said several times, in my understanding, Lao Tzu does not think hope is a good thing.
I'm thinking back through this and trying to figure out whether I've overstated my case. Do I believe "...there is a fundamental and unavoidable conflict between intellect and wu wei," or do I believe something less absolute? My impulse is to stick with the stronger statement, but I'm not sure.
Quoting Possibility
I don't think I have any strong, rational evidence for this, but I don't feel as if I need any. Call it a conceit on my part if you want. I don't think it detracts from my understanding. I like it. It makes me feel like Lao Tzu is joking around with us. That Lao Tzu, what a character.
I've tried to be clear about when I think something is true and when I think Lao Tzu thinks its true. Generally, I think I've been pretty successful in keeping the two separate both in my writing and in my own mind. In this case, I think wu wei is better than benevolence and etiquette and I think Lao Tzu does to. I might be wrong, but how could I possibly be "irresponsible?"
Quoting Possibility
There is an important concept in engineering - consequences of failure. If I'm going to make an important decision that will cost lots of money and may put people at risk, I have to be very careful about my justification for the action I'm going to take. On the other hand, if nothing bad will happen if I'm wrong, then who gives a shit. I don't have to be careful. I can take more risks. My interpretations of the TTC definitely come under the who gives a shit standard.
Quoting Possibility
And, I guess, with no power comes no responsibility.
Quoting Possibility
It sounds like you're saying I should withhold my opinion because you think I'm wrong. Not just wrong, but, somehow, irresponsibly wrong. Don't make me bring out my Ralph Waldo Emerson quotes again.
For me, the TTC was like a pair of gloves I found. I put them on and they fit, so I've worn them ever since. My intellectual, spiritual, emotional, and social path for more than 50 years has been toward more self-awareness. For me, the TTC is another brick in that wall, but it's also a guidebook. It's about acting from our true natures. For me, Lao Tzu is saying - look, over there. See that? Pay attention to that. See this here? Pay attention.
Yes, the TTC has 81 verses, but what they are about is an interpretation, not part of the original structure. The TTC is written using traditional, literary Chinese - this language has a clear and logical structure, including some very straightforward grammar rules, without exception:
1. What precedes modifies what follows.
2. Words do not change.
3. Chinese is topic-prominent - the topic of a sentence comes first, not the subject.
4. Aspect, not tense.
5. Chinese is logical.
In traditional literary Chinese, logic and simplicity is the key. Think a mathematics of ideas. Two characters won’t be used where one will suffice. If two different characters are used for one idea, they describe two different aspects of that idea. If a character set is repeated, those aspects of each structure are identical. If the character is different, even if they could be translate roughly the same, the aspect is different.
This much we know. Everything else is an interpretation of structure that brings our experiential (affected) relationship with the ideas themselves into focus.
The first verse modifies what follows: This book does not define the Tao. Any naming is indicative only. This is an attempt at a ToE that explains both the underlying structure and how we perceive it. The trick is to keep personal judgement/affect out of the intellectual framework, by striving to understand how everything we experience is unavoidably coloured by it, at every level of awareness. This correct framework, together with affect, brings us to the most accurate experience of the mystery that is the Tao.
I find that most translations do not take all of these basic structures and rules into account when they interpret verses. The English language has many exceptions to the rules, especially in poetry and literature. But literary Chinese sticks to the rules. So, when our interpretation seems confusing, I think it helps to fall back to this, and be prepared to challenge our personal and ideological relationship to the ideas that form each concept, trusting that this basic, logical structure is sound.
This is the ultimate wu-wei. Trying to find Lao Tzu’s intention in the text loses sight of the reason it’s structured this way: so that his affect (including his own ignorance) doesn’t obstruct the flow of chi in any way. In this way, the more we learn about the world, the more the TTC makes sense.
Quoting T Clark
Comprehend the Tao? No, I don’t think it can either. But if we comprehend the intellectual structure provided by the TTC, and in doing so embody that structure fully (in other words, restructure our own affected methodology of interacting with the world to align with the TTC), then I believe we can relate directly to the Tao, in our capacity as a human being. We can experience a oneness with the Tao, which is not the same as being the Tao, nor is it the same as understanding the Tao, as the first verse clarifies.
Like this:
Quoting T Clark
I guess I just wanted you to acknowledge that you have no evidence for saying that Lao Tzu thinks the same way you do here. It’s all based on your own personal judgement, affect, desire...
I happen to think it does detract from your understanding, but what do I know? You’re not after an accurate understanding of the TTC, only one that you can live with. I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with that - just try not to get too defensive at how a different perspective might makes yours appear.
Quoting T Clark
This is not engineering - you’re talking about a direct causal relation between action and consequence. Wu-wei is about the indirect relations - such as the risk your decision has for the environment, the local economy, etc. These effects can’t be traced back to your decision in a linear causal relation, but are nevertheless influenced by it. Where do you think your ‘who gives a shit’ standard sits on the ‘ladder’ of virtue?
Quoting T Clark
That’s not what I’m saying at all. It doesn’t matter whether I think you’re wrong or not. It’s not my place to say anything more than I disagree with you. What matters is that you take responsibility for whatever inaccuracies you might be putting out there - that you claim them as your own, not attribute them to the TTC or to Lao Tzu. What makes the TTC so enduring is that any inaccuracies from Lao Tzu’s understanding of his place in the world have had no impact whatsoever on the underlying logical structure.
[emphasis added]
I think this is where I disagreed with you most due to my concern that I couldn't see how any responsible person would believe that hope is not a good thing. Discussed 20 days ago, p11.
I think that you were influenced by the Stephen Mitchell translation of Ch13.
The second line 'Hope is as hollow as fear'.
Expanded to 'Hope and fear are both phantoms'
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/513854
I have returned to Ch13 and listened to the Derek Lin translation and explanation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIlLSFJlQAo
Again, it is lengthy just over an hour. However, the short paraphrase and summary starts at 55.27.
Well worth listening to re the structure. How the first 2 lines are the key statements, followed by an expansion as to their meaning.
Line 1 - Favour and disgrace make one fearful
Line 2 - The greatest misfortune is the self
It is best you listen for yourself, including the Summary re Introspection as inspired by the TTC.
Basically, to elevate your thinking beyond yourself, to care for something greater than yourself.
Our biggest problem is the ego that reacts to words of praise or criticism; there is a tendency to desire positive opinions and avoid criticism perceived as negative.
I see nothing there about hope not being a good thing.
It is this kind of translation that @Possibility warns against.
I agree that great care must be taken when reading the TTC and to ask 'Does this sound right?'
Modern language might not be as accurate as we would wish, it depends on the knowledge and experience of the translator. They take the responsibility of making the text and meaning as accessible and clear as possible so that we can get a bit closer to the original, whatever that was.
As @Possibility makes clear to us all:
Quoting Possibility
Not sure about 'acting from our true natures' - what is your true nature ?
What do you think of how our egos and personality colour the way we understand and interact with others when we discuss the TTC ? I too see the TTC as a guidebook - but how we are guided depends on the translation. We can be led astray...
In Derek Lin's YouTube presentation of Ch13, lines 8-12 he paraphrases his translation:
The greatest misfortune is the self. How is it our biggest problem is the ego ? Think about all the troubles we get into when the ego is out of control. The issue here is to dial down the sense of self-importance.
13-16: The greatest rulers are the ones who can transcend the ego. They feel concern for the greater good. The greatest individuals are ones who love something greater than themselves; the family, team and community. They are the ones who can truly take charge of their own destiny.
Some might say, "Get over yourself !"...
I do agree with T Clark’s sentiment here. I think the TTC draws our attention to the relations in our experience, and invites us to look closer at what is going on. I also think it helps to get our ego/fear/desires/affect out of the way first, though. One could argue that this is similar to the call of scientific endeavour. Those who pursue intelligence for its own sake tell us to discard, reject or ignore affect/emotion as irrelevant; those who reject the pursuit of intelligence tell us that we cannot possibly understand, so just feel; the TTC recognises both intelligence and affect as part of who we are as human beings. We can allow for how we feel, even move it aside, but not ignore it - affect forms our potential to think, speak and collaborate. Without it, we cannot be aware that we exist. And intellect is a part of our way to the Tao, but not our goal. Without it, we cannot be aware of the Tao to follow, let alone construct a suitable path...
Quoting Amity
I like to say ‘get out of my own way’...
Yes. I am sorry I missed that out in my earlier response.
Typically only zooming in on what I found question worthy. Here it is again:
Quoting T Clark
The impact of the TTC on someone - here @T Clark - who is trying to become more self-aware is incredible. I just wonder about the actual effects; the if and how any behaviour patterns are changed. Anyone can jump in here ! @Valentinus @Wayfarer @javi2541997 et al...
I guess that the phrase 'another brick in the wall' is seen here as a positive - another way to build up towards the aim of increased self-awareness or self-realisation.
It brought to mind Pink Floyd's 'Another Brick in the Wall' which included the famous line: 'We don't need no education'.
Quoting wiki
Anything that invites us to look closer at what is going on, including the education system is all to the good. And yes, the TTC reinforces that need - to be aware, to attend, to pay careful attention.
That can be part of our growing awareness as we experience life. If we listen to others as well as our own selves. To change if necessary...
Quoting Possibility
Well, I talk to myself too - and it's 'Get over yourself !' :smile:
Quoting Possibility
Yes. I think that is right :sparkle:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/521859
I said I don't have any "strong, rational evidence." The TTC is not about rational anything. You keep coming back to my use of my "own personal judgement." I don't get it. Of course it's my personal judgement. Every thing I know, feel, or believe is based on my personal judgement. If you are implying that your understanding is based on more than that... well, that claim seems pretty arrogant to me.
Quoting Possibility
I don't understand why you are so worried about my understanding. I'm not after "an accurate understanding of the TTC," I want to hear and feel what Lao Tzu is saying. Those are two different things. Although you claim otherwise, you are saying there's something wrong with that.
Quoting Possibility
Of course it is. Everything is engineering. I'm a hammer and the world is full of nails.
Quoting Possibility
I've written three or four responses to this, but I keep erasing them. I guess I have no useful response.
Yes, I was definitely influenced by Mitchell's translation. It was the first translation I read and those lines are some of the ones that jumped out at me the strongest. How does it make someone irresponsible not to value hope? I could see "wrong" or even "deluded," but why "irresponsible."
Quoting Amity
I reread Lin's translation and comments. He doesn't put it in the same terms as Mitchell, but I don't see anything inconsistent.
Quoting Amity
I'm fine with this.
Quoting Amity
It's ok if you and @Possibility disagree with the way I understand what Lao Tzu is saying. I don't understand why it seems to bother you both so much.
I recognize my true nature. I can feel it. Sometimes. Wu wei is acting from our true nature. Sometimes I can do that. I know what wu wei feels like.
Quoting Amity
No, I don't think we can be lead astray, not if we focus on the experience rather than the words.
Quoting Amity
This explication makes sense to me.
Yes. Also, @Valentinus is a mason.
That's not what I said. Here:
Quoting Amity
My concern was that this translation appears negative about hope. I think that when we send out that kind of message, it is possible that we are not thinking enough about the implications for hopeful readers who don't look beyond...and take that at face value.
It concerns me when some talk of the body, fear and hope as being illusions. It is important to recognise the reality. The whole interaction of body, mind and spirit.
I suppose that is where any 'irresponsibility' could enter the picture. Hope can be seen as good or bad. It depends. Most times, I think, it is what motivates people to carry on in adverse circumstances.
Even if if is a false hope - isn't it something like 'love' ?
'Tis better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all' - Tennyson.
Quoting T Clark
OK. But I will repeat:
Quoting Amity
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/521793
Quoting T Clark
I can't speak for @Possibility - but I hope my attempt above offers some clarification.
We don't always disagree with the way you understand the TTC.
Your input is much appreciated, in any case. It makes me think. Thanks :smile:
Really ? Does that mean he gets plastered :party:
OK. That could be the start of another debate but I'll leave it there.
Quoting T Clark
As above.
Quoting T Clark
Yay !! :up: to Derek Lin :starstruck:
I want them to take what I say at face value. I believe, and I think Lao Tzu would agree, that hope distracts us from the path he is trying to show us.
Quoting Amity
I have no problem with you disagreeing with the way I see things, but, I'm having a hard time figuring out how to respond to this. Are you asking me to stop giving my understanding because you don't like it? The TTC is a radical rejection of convention. Maybe "dismissal" is a better word than "rejection." Don't be surprised if you find it in conflict with some of your beliefs. You don't have to agree with me and you don't have to agree with Lao Tzu.
No need to go into it any deeper now, but this is at the heart of how I use the TTC. As I've said many times, for me, the primary value of the TTC is as a guide to the experience of my true nature and the Tao.
As we go forward, I will look for places in the text that are relevant to this issue. We can use those discussions to go deeper into this.
It is not a matter of me convincing you or of you convincing me but of putting forward different perspectives for all interested to read, watch, listen and consider. Even if there are limited participants...this thread has received a lot of 'views'.
Quoting T Clark
That might be interesting, thanks. However, I am taking a break.
Following this, on your Mysticism thread:
Quoting Amity
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/522233
:sparkle:
What I’m claiming is that there exists an underlying logical framework to the TTC that is... well, eternal. It contains none of my personal judgement or yours, not even Lao Tzu’s experience of the world. It is a pure mathematical structure to reality, that we each populate with values from our own relative experience. It is ‘the way’ we can experience objective reality, regardless of where or how we start. Everything else is either variability (quality) or relativity (affect).
Quoting T Clark
It’s more like an overall distribution of the energy/entropy of a local system in terms of attention AND effort. I think that all physical existence could be perceived as consisting of affect, but it’s highly relative, with a wave-like potentiality at a quantum level. At the level of conscious experience, affect does highlight (or overlook/avoid) an aspect of reality, yes. But that’s only part of the naming process. We determine its attractive/destructive qualities as an idea, and then quantify it as a positive/negative/immeasurable thing.
I think the issue that Lao Tzu has with this naming process is that it’s backwards. It constructs the world from how an aspect of the world affects us, immediately distorting our perspective of reality. What doesn’t appear to suit our needs we reject, what seems to benefit us we idolise and pursue as if it’s something separate from the rest of the world, yet exists exactly as we perceive it - like the Confucian attitude towards filial piety, or the Christian attitude towards ‘spiritual gifts’ such as knowledge, righteousness, courage, etc.
What I think Lao Tzu shows in this group of verses is that each of these ‘named things’ refer to aspects of reality that interrelate in an eternally logical structure, regardless of how any of it affects us. If we always start from an understanding of this rational framework, then everything falls into place for us, and we can interact without resistance - effortlessly, like the butcher with his knife.
But to get to this logical framework, we need to parse our experience into affect (relativity), quality (variability) and logic. This is what Lao Tzu attempts with the TTC. He describes a broad variety of human experience, asking us to pay attention to where the affected structure of our own thoughts, words and behaviour conflict with a natural logic that ‘bubbles to the surface’.
Quoting T Clark
You seem to think I’m worried or bothered by our disagreements. I’m not, but I’m also not one to simply ‘agree to disagree’. I think that’s a missed opportunity. Disagreement highlights an area of the discussion where chi is blocked or resisted. My intention is to free the flow, not to attack your particular approach. I honestly don’t think of it as your understanding, so I’m sorry if it feels as if I’m implying that you are wrong by association.
Quoting T Clark
My point was that this thinking is not consistent with wu-wei. But I get the feeling that you think the TTC explains only how the world outside of engineering works, as if it’s for everything that’s beyond rationality, but doesn’t change how you understand the physical world...
https://www.yellowbridge.com/onlinelit/daodejing.php
That website contains 3 translations of the "Daodejing", each chapter having the three translations side by side. This helps with interpreting the words, since the "Daodejing" is somewhat hard to translate, or, at least, get the meaning "right".
My way of reading and understanding Laozi is somewhat inspired by the approach of neo-daoism, though I'm not actually all that interested in the neo-daoists themselves; rather, my understanding of the dao is contextualized by other daoist/zen texts and two of the "Five Classics", which I think Li Er (the historical Laozi) was familiar with, those being the ""I Ching" and the "Shang Shu". Li Er was employed as a "keeper of the archives" (a court librarian), according to traditional views, so it's not particularly far reached to assume he indeed was familiar with certain texts from and before his time.
The neo-daoist curriculum consisted of the "I Ching", the "Daodejing" and the "Zhuangzi". I believe the "Liezi", "Huahujing" and the "Wunengzi" also are relevant to a better understanding of the dao, as are the works of Takuan Soho (a zen monk with an interest in daoism), and the works of his correspondents (those being Miyamoto Musashi and Yagyu Munenori).
As for daoism actually being a religion, yeah, it is. There are temples, priests and nuns on Wudangshan. They claim that Yinxi, the guard who allegedly asked Laozi to write the "Daodejing" down when he passed through the area after giving up his post as a librarian, was the founder of Wudang daoism. This makes Yinxi effectively the first daoist. That the "Daodejing" and other daoist texts can be read as philosophical treatises doesn't detract from that. The "Upanishads" can be read as a philosophical text too, but this doesn't negate the issue that Hinduism is a religion.
Anyway, here's one of my favorite chapters from the "Daodejing". Make of it what you will:
"[i]Sincere words are not fine; fine words are not sincere. Those who are skilled (in the Dao) do not dispute (about it); the disputatious are not skilled in it. Those who know (the Dao) are not extensively learned; the extensively learned do not know it.
The sage does not accumulate (for himself). The more that he expends for others, the more does he possess of his own; the more that he gives to others, the more does he have himself.
With all the sharpness of the Way of Heaven, it injures not; with all the doing in the way of the sage he does not strive.[/i]"
-"Daodejing", Legge translation, ch. 81
https://www.yellowbridge.com/onlinelit/daodejing81.php
I do think that our affected relation to this concept of ‘hope’ does distract us from the path, but that doesn’t mean there’s anything wrong with the idea or quality of hope in the world. The issue I think Lao Tzu has is with the naming of ‘hope’ as something separate in the world that we strive to obtain or possess for its own sake, like with ‘knowledge’. I think this structural difference between the affected concept/thing and the unaffected idea/quality is a common thread in this part of the TTC. Lao Tzu describes what we call ‘hope’ in verse 14 as ‘what we listen for but do not hear’: the truth that we recognise as such, but can make no practical use of as yet. We all hope for peace, for instance, but striving to attain ‘peace’ should not be our focus. This narrow path can force us to make compromises in other areas, such as sincerity or loyalty, and to ignore, isolate or exclude information, people and opportunities to connect, all for the sake of ‘peace’. If we follow the Way, recognising that peace is not a ‘thing’ that we achieve or obtain but a quality that we can bring to our relations with the world - regardless of fear or desire, pain, loss or lack, etc - then peace will always be an option, a choice that we make.
I have been using the Yellow Bridge site throughout this discussion - I’ll admit I’m not a fan of the three translations offered, although I think they do give an interesting span of the types of translation attempts available. T Clark’s suggestion of the Terebess site gives a wide choice of translations, some of which also provide commentary and the Chinese text alongside.
I do find the pop-up translation of each Chinese character on Yellow Bridge to be invaluable, although I think that cross-referencing with Google Translate sometimes provides a clearer understanding of what can seem to be contradictory English words - the use of jué at the beginning of verses 19 and 20 is one that particularly confused me: I’d be interested in your perspective here.
I’ll admit that I’m not familiar with any of these other ancient Chinese texts (there have been a number of references in this discussion to the Zhuangzi and the I Ching), although I am intrigued by Neo-Daoism as a philosophy - so thank you for the SEP reference. I think the notion of ziran might be what @T Clark has been referring to as his ‘true nature’, so I’d also be interested in fleshing out this idea in relation to Neo-Daoism as he makes reference to it in later verses (as promised). I see this as tending more towards a natural logic than an essential self, but I could be misunderstanding it.
For me, the TTC is the antithesis of a logical framework. As I've said before, it's non-rational. Non-logical. Non-mathematical. I don't understand what you mean when you say it is. Can you give an example of the logical framework from the text.
Quoting Possibility
I use the Tao as a replacement for objective reality in my understanding of the world. I think the two views of reality are mutually exclusive. The Tao is not objective.
Quoting Possibility
This paragraph and the next three - I don't understand what you're trying to say. We've had this issue from the beginning. You use language I'm not familiar with and don't understand. I'm really trying.
Quoting Possibility
I'm very comfortable with my path on the way to understanding of the TTC. I have no objections to our disagreements. Both you and Amity have stated that I'm irresponsible for expressing my understanding because I might mislead others. That's an invalid argument and that bothers me.
Thanks for the information. I've spent time with the Tao Te Ching and Zhuangzi, but not the other documents you listed. I'll take a look at them. I have looked at the I Ching, but not in depth. It is my understanding it is older than the Tao Te Ching and I couldn't really see how they fit together. Any insight?
We're on Verse 18 right now and moving through verse by verse. We'll see how long we last. Please chime in whenever you'd like.
Are you making a distinction between the concept of hope and the idea or quality of hope? If so, I don't understand. When I say hope is bad, I just mean that it distracts us from the path. The TTC is ambiguous about value judgements.
Quoting Possibility
If we don't name "hope" as something separate in the world, it's not hope. It's something else. That's wrong, it's not something else, it's not a thing.
It's really hard for me to match up your way of seeing things with mine.
I think you may be right. I'll be on the lookout for verses where we can discuss this.
I thought I already did - here.
But I’m not explaining myself very well here. I believe that the TTC structures all of reality as consisting basically of logic, quality and energy, at any level of awareness. Because we obviously cannot view the TTC from outside of reality, I think we do so from one of these three points:
From a purely logical standpoint, the TTC describes the feeling of ideas, the subjective quality of experiencing the Tao. This, I would imagine, is close to how you see it. As an engineer, your perspective of the world is grounded in logic and rationality. You position yourself according to logic, and notice the world according to how much everything diverges from rationality. You’re less likely to see the logic of a structure when you naturally embody that structure.
From a perspective of pure aesthetics, the TTC describes the logic behind human experience, an instructional manual or moral code for thinking, speaking and acting in relation to the Tao. This, I would imagine, is how many literary translators have approached the TTC. As linguists, art historians and literature professionals, their perspective of the world is grounded in the quality of aesthetic ideas. Positioning themselves according to ‘the Beautiful and the Good’, they notice the world according to how everything diverges from this ideal.
From the perspective of an experiencing subject, the TTC describes the logic of qualitative relational structure, a strategic framework for relating to the Tao. This is close to how I have been approaching it. My perspective of the world is grounded in the natural flow of energy or chi. Positioning myself according to how I effect this flow of energy (as the only thing I could possibly be, the part of the world that is me) allows me to notice the world according to how I might relate to it, how I distribute this energy (attention and effort) as it flows though me.
I don’t really think there’s anything wrong with the other two approaches. And looking at it this way, I can see how my own approach seems more than a little bit ‘out there’. But this unusual perspective has given me the clearest intellectual understanding of wu - the stillness or emptiness at the centre of both ziran and wu-wei. From a logical perspective, such emptiness seems to amount to not-thinking (which obviously one can’t really think about or discuss), and from an aesthetic perspective it seems to amount to something like amorality (which perhaps explains all the drunken intellectuals of early Neo-Daoism!).
I guess the main criticism I might make about your approach is that it renders the TTC as indescribable as any other subjective quality of experience. It’s difficult to participate in a philosophical discussion of the TTC if we agree that it is entirely non-rational. It’s like philosophical discussions of qualia: largely pointless, consisting of everyone talking across purposes or expressing their ineffable uniqueness. It can be quite cathartic and creative for a while, but not much philosophy gets done, I’m afraid.
Let me clarify my use of ‘irresponsible’: it was in particular reference to your unfounded claims that Lao Tzu thinks a certain way as distinct from - and in relation to - your own way of thinking, and your ‘who gives a shit’ approach to making such claims on a public forum, as it relates to the notion of wu-wei. It wasn’t a judgement against expressing your understanding, but an observation of how you perceive (or don’t perceive) its broader potential to reverberate in the world.
Then why say ‘hope is bad’ if that’s not what you mean? If the TTC is ambiguous about value judgements, especially if it seems deliberate, then shouldn’t we try to keep value judgements out of our interpretation?
The distinction I’m making is a structural one, between a concept and an idea. It’s about attributing value/significance/potential.
Quoting T Clark
Exactly.
I don’t understand how you can replace objective reality with the Tao, as if the two were interchangeable, and also claim that they are mutually exclusive, and that the Tao is not objective. That’s seems a contradiction to me.
I, too, need to work on being clearer. I have gone back and tried to remove some of this language from a recent post. I will try the same with this explanation of affect - let me know if it helps:
I see affect as the process (conscious and unconscious) of restructuring HOW energy (chi) flows through me in terms of not just attention, but also effort. Energy (chi) flows through everything, but is always relative, subjective, localised. At the level of conscious experience, affect can highlight an aspect of reality, as you say. It can also avoid or overlook an aspect - by blocking chi or directing flow (attention and effort) away from it. But highlighting or avoiding an aspect by directing the flow of chi is only part of the process called ‘naming’. We also judge certain immeasurable qualities, ideas or forces that we highlight (or cannot avoid/ignore) as attractive/destructive ‘things’, and judge certain quantities, objects or concepts as valuable/terrible ‘things’ - all by re-directing the flow of chi. This is affect. It’s what we do with energy/information, how we distribute it internally and direct it back out into world.
Quoting Possibility
As far as I'm concerned, there's no need to discuss this more. Which doesn't mean you can't if you want to.
Quoting Possibility
I've had disagreements about value judgements in the TTC, and not just with you. If hope distracts me from the path, from following Lao Tzu's path, that's a bad thing. That's my judgement. Lao Tzu might wag his finger at me if he were here. So, no, I don't think I have to keep my value judgements out of my interpretation as long as I'm clear and recognize the ambiguity.
Quoting Possibility
In my dictionary, "concept" and "idea" are synonyms. I don't understand the distinction.
Quoting Possibility
I think you and I have different understandings of the relation between the Tao and the 10,000 things.
Quoting Possibility
Both objective reality and the Tao are metaphysical entities, two different ways of seeing the nature of reality. One way of seeing things is not right while the other is wrong, they are more or less useful in a particular situation. I find the Tao a more useful idea in most situations.
Quoting Possibility
This sounds ok, although I still don't get some of it. Seems like you're talking about what I call "naming," but you're examining how it works as a process while I don't. As I've said in previous posts, I'm still unclear on how things get from the Tao to the 10,000 things. I'll think on what you've said from that perspective. We can talk about this more as we go along.
I'm still confused by "affect." Does that come from Barrett? I haven't gotten any further in her book yet.
:up:
Quoting T Clark
Synonym does not mean identical - it just means people use them without regard for any difference between them. In design, however, there is a clear difference. Basically, an idea is partial or not fully formed, while a concept often includes form and viability. Here’s an in-depth explanation of the difference.
Quoting T Clark
I would have thought that was obvious from the start. You have said a couple of times now that you’re unclear on this relation.
Quoting T Clark
It’s just a name, a placeholder for what cannot be named, and doesn’t change. So I don’t think that what you name it has much use at all, to be honest. It doesn’t change how we see it - not at the level that we can ‘see’ it as such, anyway. But I have to keep remembering that you’re experiencing, not relating to the Tao. So of course how you name it changes how you experience it, and it’s only ‘objective reality’ if it’s consistent with your logic, which the Tao is not.
Quoting T Clark
Yes. I use affect to describe what we do with energy because her description of the process is apt.
I believe you are referring to verse 5.
I read the passage to say that the bellows are not exhausted in the way speech can be by continuing without end.
"Nature" may be presented in the verse but it should be seen in the context of other statements made in the verse. As one translation has it:
Heaven and earth are ruthless, and treat the myriad creatures as straw dogs., the sage is ruthless,
and treats the people as straw dogs.
Is not the space between heaven and earth like a bellows?
It is empty without being exhausted:
The more it works the more comes out.
Much speech leads inevitably to silence.
Better to hold fast to the void.
Translated by D.C. Lau
This is your original statement that set off the idea/concept discussion. Let's go back to it.
Quoting Possibility
Are you saying that, although the idea of hope is one of the 10,000 things and distracts us from the Tao, hope still somehow resides within the Tao as a concept? That's what lead me to say -
Quoting T Clark
The TTC is clear - the Tao does not have anything inside it. It is undivided and indivisible. It isn't made up of anything else. It isn't a mixture. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're trying to say.
Quoting Possibility
The Tao cannot be named, but objective reality can. It's a thing. It's one of the 10,000 things. It's just a bag full of everything. Things in objective reality exist without being named.
Quoting Possibility
You can't relate to the Tao. Nothing can. The Tao has no logic. That's not how it works. I don't think all this arguing is getting us anywhere.
I saw this a little differently. The functionality of emptiness is capacity, unrealised potential.
We are not so much in what we say, but in our capacity to speak. Likewise, the bellows utensil is not the air it blows, but its capacity to blow. The space between heaven and earth is not what exists, but the capacity for existence. In this way, the sage sees the value of humanity not in the ‘hundred family names’ - these are like straw dogs: fragile, temporary, indicative. Like the air that passes through the bellows.
Likewise, the Tao is not so much the 10,000 things, but the full potentiality that their existence, and subsequent ‘naming’, only temporarily, incompletely, indicates.
No, I’m saying that the concept of ‘hope’ is one of the 10,000 things, and directing effort and attention towards it as an objective or virtue in itself distracts us from the path. But this quality of hoping - like listening without hearing, or directing attention without understanding how to direct effort - is an inseparable aspect of experiencing the Tao.
Quoting T Clark
Maybe, because I agree with all of these statements. Let me know your thoughts on my reply above to Valentinus regarding verse 5.
Quoting T Clark
I disagree with this. Have you ever tried to define ‘objective reality’? To say that it’s one of the 10,000 things is to say that we can name things that are not objective reality. Is that what you’re saying? If so, then we have a different understanding of ‘objective reality’. But it might explain why you say that objective reality and the Tao are ‘mutually exclusive’, like some form of dualism. I don’t know.
Quoting T Clark
You seem so certain of this, that what I say I’m doing just isn’t (logically) possible. That I can’t do this, or that you know what the Tao does or doesn’t have. Where does this certainty come from?
Quoting T Clark
I don’t know - I think I’m getting better at understanding where you’re coming from now. Bear with me. I won’t necessarily agree with you, but I’m not going to try and tell you what you can’t do.
It looks like I may have been using ‘logic’ where I mean ‘rationality’. This may not solve our disagreement, but I’m trying to be clearer...
[quote=Laozi]Those who speak, dont know. Those who know, don't speak[/quote]
The quote above, without failing to do justice to it, can be interpreted as a claim in epistemology. The statement, itself a handiwork of an Eastern philosopher, is one about a Western philosophical concern viz. epistemology. Further reading Pyrrho, Agrippa, and Munchhausen's trilemma, The Problem Of The Criterion will shed light on how the two are actually one viz. that West and East, though dissimilar in approach and style are in fact on the same page. This is one example I can think of that's amenable to this interpretation.
Another minor nonetheless significant point is that Laozi seems to be deeply concerned by generalizations and that's a very easy mistake to make when one is intellectually lazy. Thus, Laozi is also sharing his views on logical fallacies.
Come to think of it, this is precisely how Taoism is interpreted in the West - selecting specific branches and their allied concepts/theories/whatnot of Western philosophies and using them to contextualize Laozi's many utterances with the aim being to grasp the message contained therein. However this approach to Taoism seems neither systematic nor deliberate i.e. we're doing it instinctively, automatically.
Perhaps if we follow our instincts in this regard and do what we're already doing but this time knowingly and in an organized fashion, what might come out at the other end could quite possibly be a better grasp of Laozi and his cryptic statements.
An interesting quote from Confucius with regard to naming, from a SEP article I’m reading on ‘Logic and Language in Early Chinese Philosophy’:
“An exemplary person (junzi) defers on matters he does not understand. When names are not used properly, language will not be used effectively; when language is not used effectively, matters will not be taken care of; when matters are not taken care of, the observance of ritual propriety (li) and the playing of music (yue) will not flourish; when the observance of ritual propriety and the playing of music do not flourish, the application of laws and punishment will not be on the mark; when the application of laws and punishments is not on the mark, the people will not know what to do with themselves. Thus, when the exemplary person puts a name to something, it can certainly be spoken, and when spoken it can certainly be acted upon. There is nothing careless in the attitude of the exemplary person toward what is said”. (Analects 13.3; tr. Ames and Rosemont 1998)
I noticed how the structure of this is similar to translations of verse 18 in the TTC...
Quoting Valentinus
Quoting Possibility
I've never gotten the bellows thing. Does it have something to do with Verse 11 - emptiness? This is Chen's translation:
[i]Thirty spokes share one hub to make a wheel.
Through its non-being (wu),
There is (yu) the use (yung) of the carriage.
Mold clay into a vessel (ch'i).
Through its non-being (wu),
There is (yu) the use (yung) of the vessel.
Cut out doors and windows to make a house.
Through its non-being (wu),
There is (yu) the use (yung) of the house.
[b]Therefore in the being (yu-chih) of a thing,
There lies the benefit (li).
In the non-being (wu-chih) of a thing,
There lies its use (yun).[/b][/i]
Or maybe verse 55. Again Chen.
[i]One who contains te in fullness,
Is to be compared to an infant...
...Such is the perfection of its life-force (ching).
Crying all day, yet it does not get hoarse.[/i]
The bellows has a cyclic motion - empty, fill, empty, fill - like the 10,000 things returning to the Tao.
I don't know if you've been following along at all. We've been having a discussion of knowledge and how it is handled in the TTC. Why don't you go back and read the posts on Verse 18. Here's the start:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/520217
Does your interest fall anywhere in that area? Also, how Taoism fits in with western philosophies has come up a few times in the thread.
Yes, the emptiness in this verse is tied to how it appears in the other verses.
I hear what Possibility is saying about potential in contrast to what actually comes into being. I see what you recognize as your "true nature" as one of the beings who appear. But it seems to me that distinctions we make in discussing the emergence of the 10,000 things needs to connect with where the text compares the more "immortal" to the completely "mortal". In verse 7 the matter is put this way:
Quoting T Clark
That is what struck me about the metaphor. In line with my emphasis upon mortality, I think the comments I made about verse 10 still apply. The Tao is said to be the same on both sides of the gate.
Hi!
Ooh the Terebess site looks nice! Thnx for the heads up and thank you T Clark for providing the link!
Google Translate? I've found that DeepL usually has beter translation results.
https://www.deepl.com/translator
As for the specific usage of Chinese characters, well, sorry to say, but my Chinese is non-existent. Particularly bad for me, since I'm actually Chinese. :shade: I am, however, fairly well read when it comes to daoist philosophy; I believe the following passage from the "Zhiangzi" might help with interpreting the verses you mentioned. I've also added some notes from guidebooks on world history to highlight that neither Zhiangzi nor Laozi where talking about mere imaginings. I made those notes hidden since it's not particularly important to this thread imho.
"[i]According to my idea, those who knew well to govern mankind would not act so. The people had their regular and constant nature: they wove and made themselves clothes; they tilled the ground and got food. This was their common faculty. They were all one in this, and did not form themselves into separate classes; so were they constituted and left to their natural tendencies. Therefore in the age of perfect virtue men walked along with slow and grave step, and with their looks steadily directed forwards. At that time, on the hills there were no foot-paths, nor excavated passages; on the lakes there were no boats nor dams; all creatures lived in companies; and the places of their settlement were made close to one another. Birds and beasts multiplied to flocks and herds; the grass and trees grew luxuriant and long. In this condition the birds and beasts might be led about without feeling the constraint; the nest of the magpie might be climbed to, and peeped into. Yes, in the age of perfect virtue, men lived in common with birds and beasts, and were on terms of equality with all creatures, as forming one family - how could they know among themselves the distinctions of superior men and small men? Equally without knowledge, they did not leave (the path of) their natural virtue; equally free from desires, they were in the state of pure simplicity. In that state of pure simplicity, the nature of the people was what it ought to be. But when the sagely men appeared, limping and wheeling about in (the exercise of) benevolence, pressing along and standing on tiptoe in the doing of righteousness, then men universally began to be perplexed. (Those sages also) went to excess in their performances of music, and in their gesticulations in the practice of ceremonies, and then men began to be separated from one another. If the raw materials had not been cut and hacked, who could have made a sacrificial vase from them? If the natural jade had not been broken and injured, who could have made the handles for the libation-cups from it? If the attributes of the Dao had not been disallowed, how should they have preferred benevolence and righteousness? If the instincts of the nature had not been departed from, how should ceremonies and music have come into use? If the five colours had not been confused, how should the ornamental figures have been formed? If the five notes had not been confused, how should they have supplemented them by the musical accords? The cutting and hacking of the raw materials to form vessels was the crime of the skilful workman; the injury done to the characteristics of the Dao in order to the practice of benevolence and righteousness was the error of the sagely men.[/i}"
-Zhuangzi, Horses Hoofs 2
[hide]
III. Let us now turn to the questions of when agriculture was introduced, the complexities of its introduction, and its implications for the future.
A. The introduction of agriculture, sometimes called the Neolithic revolution, was a crucial change in the human experience. Some would argue that, other than the emergence of the species itself, the development of agriculture and the later replacement of agricultural economies with industrial economies are the two key developments of the human experience.
B.Agriculture was invented in at least three separate places.
1. The first invention occurred in the northern Middle East/Black Sea region with domestication of wheat and barley.
2. The second invention occurred in South China and continental Southeast Asia around 7000 BCE with the introduction of rice.
3. The third invention was the domestication of corn, or maize, in Central America about 5000 BCE.
4. Agriculture may also have been invented in other places, including sub-Saharan Africa and northern China.
C. By 5000 BCE, agriculture had gradually spread and was becoming the most common economic system for the largest number of people in the world. Despite the advantages of agriculture over hunting and gathering, its widespread adoption was slow.
1.One reason for this slow spread was that contacts among relatively far-flung populations were minimal.
2. Not all regions were suitable for agriculture; some were heavily forested or arid.
3. An alternative economic system based on nomadic herding of animals prevailed for a long time over agriculture in the Middle East, Africa, the Americas, and Central Asia.
4.Agriculture involves settling down,which might not have been attractive to some hunting-and-gathering societies that treasured their capacity to move around.
IV. When agriculture was introduced, it brought massive changes in the human experience.
A. Agriculture involves more work, particularly for men, than hunting and gathering; thus, it redefined and increased the work expectations of human society.
B.Agriculture also redefined gender relations. In most hunting-and-gathering societies, men did the hunting and women did the gathering, but because both groups contributed to the food supply, women usually had some influence in society. In agricultural societies, however, patriarchal systems predominated.
1. The most obvious reason for the increase in male dominance was that agriculture both permitted and required an expansion of the birthrate.
2. Men increasingly assumed the role of principal cultivator of the crucial food crops, resulting in the development of patriarchal societies.
3. In hunting-and-gathering societies, children had few functions until they reached their early teens. In agricultural societies, childhood and work became more closely associated, and the idea of obedience tended to follow this shift.
V. The advent of agriculture raises interesting questions about human progress.
A.Despite what many of us learned in grade school, the adoption of agriculture had a number of drawbacks. In some cases, these drawbacks affected some groups willingness to adopt agriculture.
1.The first drawback is the introduction of new kinds of inequality, particularly between men and women.
2.The second is that agriculture allowed people to settle down into clustered communities, which exposedthe inhabitants to increased incidences of epidemic disease.
3.The third is that agricultural societies altered the local environment in a way that hunting-and-gathering societies did not do, to the extent of damaging and even destroying a regional environment and the communities that existed there.
B.The advantages of agriculture, however, allowed it to spread.
1.One not entirely frivolous theory toexplain this spread is that agriculture allowed the growth of products that could be fermented to create alcohol.
2.More systematically, agriculture significantly improved food supplies, which in turn allowed families to have more children and resulted in population expansion.
3.These conditions prevailed for a long time, between about 9000 BCE until 300 to 400 years ago.
C.Agricultural economies were constrained by limitations in the amount of food that a given worker could generate. Even the most advanced agricultural economies required about 80 percent of the population to be engaged primarily in agriculture, which limited the amount of taxation that could be levied and limited the size of cities to no more than 20 percent of the populationa crucial feature to remember about agricultural societies in general.
D.Agricultural societies also generated cultural emphases, especially by encouraging new attention to the spring season and to divine forces responsible for creation.
E.The crucial features of agriculture were its role in population increase and its capacity to generate discernible surpluses, which freed at least some people to do other things, such as manufacturing pottery. As we will see in the next lecture, manufacturing could lead to yet additional developments in the human experience, including the emergence of cities and advancements in other areas of technology.
-Peter Stearns, "A Brief History of the World" Guidebook 1, p. 9, 10, 11
F. It is a mistake to think our ancestors were unsophisticated.
1. To survive using Stone Age technologies, they needed detailed scientific knowledge of their environments, accumulated through millennia of collective learning and stored in stories and myths.
2. Southwestern Tasmania was one of the most remote environments on Earth in the Paleolithic era. Yet modern archaeological studies of Kutikina Cave, which was occupied from 35,000 years ago to perhaps 13,000 years ago, have revealed hundreds of stone tools, ancient hearths, delicate spear points of wallaby bone, and knives made from natural glass (Mithen, After the Ice, pp. 30607). The first Tasmanians exploited their environment with great efficiency.
-David Christian, "Big History" Guidebook 1, p. 63
B. To many, it may seem obvious that Paleolithic lifeways were harsh, brutal, and unpleasant. Yet in 1972, American anthropologist Marshall Sahlins wrote a famous article, The Original Affluent Society, in which he questioned these assumptions. Sahlins argued that in some ways Paleolithic life was not too bad.
1. Being nomadic, people had little desire to accumulate goods. This, he describes as the Zen path to abundance: a feeling that everything you need is all around you.
2. Diets were often healthy and varied.
3. Modern studies of foraging societies suggest that people often survived on just 3 - 6 hours of work a day.
4. Because there was little accumulated wealth, Paleolithic societies were more egalitarian than those of today (though this does not mean there were no conflicts between individuals, or divisions by age, lineage, and gender).
C. On the other hand, studies of Paleolithic skeletons suggest that most people died young, usually from physical trauma of some kind.
D. Sahlins may have overstated the case, and we can be sure that someone reared in a modern society would struggle to survive in a Paleolithic society. Nevertheless, Sahlinss article reminds us that we should not
assume without question that history is a story of progress.
-Ibid.
2. Agriculture did not necessarily improve living standards, which is why many foragers who knew about farming rejected it. Archaeological evidence suggests they may have been right, for many early farmers suffered from poor health and nutrition. This idea encourages us to look for push rather than pull explanations, for factors that forced people to take up agriculture whether they wanted to or not.
-Ibid. p. 72
V. How well did the first farmers live? Did agriculture necessarily mean progress?
A. We saw in Lecture Twenty-Two that, by some criteria, Paleolithic foragers lived quite well.
B. The evidence on early farmers is mixed.
1. The first generation or two probably lived well, enjoying improved food supplies.
2. However, within a few generations, population growth created problems that nomadic foragers had never faced. Sedentary villages attracted vermin and rubbish, and diseases spread more easily with a larger pool of potential victims to infect, particularly after the introduction of domesticated animals, which passed many of their parasites on to humans. Studies of human bones from early Agrarian communities hint at new forms of stress, caused by the intense labor of harvest times, or by periodic crop failures, which became more common because farmers generally relied on a more limited range of foodstuffs than foragers. Periodic shortages may explain why skeletons seem to get shorter in early Agrarian villages.
3. On the other hand, early Agrarian communities were probably fairly egalitarian. Relative equality is apparent even in large sites such as Catal Huyuk, where buildings are similar in size, though differences in burials show there were some, possibly hereditary, differences in wealth.
VI. The early Agrarian era transformed a world of foragers into a world of peasant farmers. Within these denser communities new forms of complexity would begin to emerge. Yet by some criteria, living standards may have declined. Complexity does notnecessarily mean progress!
-Ibid. p. 75
By modern standards, Paleolithic and early Agrarian communities were simple and egalitarian. However, during the early Agrarian era, institutionalized hierarchies began to appear, dividing communities by gender, wealth, ethnicity, lineage, and power. About 5,000 years ago there appeared the first tribute-taking states. These were controlled by elites who extracted labor and resources, partly through the threat of organized force, just as farmers extracted ecological rents from their domesticated plants and animals. The appearance of states was a momentous transition in human history.
-Ibid. p. 77
V. Now we return to the early Agrarian era to trace how power structures became more significant and more institutionalized. It will help to imagine two distinct ways of mobilizing power. Though intertwined in reality, we can distinguish them analytically.
A. Power from below is power conceded more or less willingly by individuals or groups who expect to benefit from subordination to skillful leaders. People expect something in return for subordination, so power from below is a mutualistic form of symbiosis. As societies became largerand denser, leadership became more important in order to achieve group goals, such as the building of irrigation systems or defense in war.
1. Familiar modern examples of power from below include the election of club or team officials or captains.
2. When we think of power as legitimate (e.g., the right to tax in a democratic society), we are generally thinking of it as power from below, even if it is backed by the threat of force.
B. Power from above depends on the capacity to make credible threats of coercion. That depends on the existence of disciplined groups of coercers, loyal to the leader and able to enforce the leaders will by force when necessary. In such an environment, people obey because they will be punished if they do not. This aspect of power highlights the coercive (or parasitic) element in power relationships.
1. The existence of jails, police, and armiesis evidence that such power exists.
2. Yet no state can depend entirely on coercion becausemaintaining an apparatus of coercion is costly and depends on maintaining the willing support of the coercers. No individual can single-handedly coerce millions of others.
C. In practice, the two forms of power are intertwined in complex ways. Protection rackets, for example, offer a service. Yet it is often the racket itself that is the likely source of danger, so does the payment of protection money count as a form of power from below or above?
D. Building coercive groups is complex and costly, and the earliest forms of power emerged before such groups existed. That is why the first power elites depended mainly on power from below.
-Ibid. P. 78
[/hide]
Well, you're in for a treat if you like daoism and haven't read the "Zhuangzi". It's a philosophical treatise which is actually funny at times. I highly recommend reading at least the "Inner Chapters"..
Anyway, here's a link to the "Zhuangzi":
https://ctext.org/daoism
... The "I Ching"
http://www2.unipr.it/~deyoung/I_Ching_Wilhelm_Translation.html
And the "Liezi":
https://www.sacred-texts.com/tao/tt/
Finally, the "Shang Shu":
https://ctext.org/shang-shu
There are several angles one can take when it comes to the relationship between the "I Ching" and the "Daodejing" in my opinion:
-Li Er (historical Laozi) worked as a court librarian before leaving his post. This means that he was most likely familiar with the "I Ching".
-The "I Ching" isn't just an oracle text. It also spells out the cosmology in which the ancient Chinese intellectuals did their thinking.
-It also acts as a sort of conceptual dictionary for ancient Chinese texts. Words like "heaven" and "earth" are easy to translate, but harder to interpret within the right framework.
Take ch. 1 of the "Daodejing" for example:
"[i](Conceived of as) having no name, it is the Originator of heaven and earth;
(conceived of as) having a name, it is the Mother of all things.[/i]"
So, when wanting to know what the Laozi was talking about here, it helps when you're familiar with the cosmology he was thinking in. He mentions "the Originator of heaven and earth". Heaven, in this case, refers to the concept talked about in hexagram 1, earth to the concept talked about in hexagram 2. When he's talking about "the originator", he's talking about wuji / taji, but those are merely names...
Will do. :up:
:up: :clap: A gem of a statement. What if it's a narrative-like composition? You know, like a story. A story has no logic per se, it's simply a report of events, emotions, actions of characters in that story.
Quoting T Clark
I'll get back to you. Thanks.
Just popping in to say thanks for all the information you provided.
Luckily for me and my level of understanding @Wayfarer mentioned this on p4 - about a month ago...doesn't time fly...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/510086
Also @Valentinus p8
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/511050
And @Amity
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/511470
'An instructive story regarding wei wu wei, literally 'doing not-doing'.
Cook Ding Cuts Up an Ox'
Appreciated later feedback from both Wayfarer and Valentinus, an example:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/512233
I had downloaded the Zhuangzi, the Burton-Watson translation from the terebess website. Shared with @Jack Cummins and I am still reading it.
https://terebess.hu/english/tao/Zhuangzi-Burton-Watson.pdf
However, your link is quite amazing. I clicked on Ch1:
https://ctext.org/zhuangzi/enjoyment-in-untroubled-ease
And found not only a translation by Legge but small clickable boxes:
Blue: jump to dictionary; you can hover over each Chinese character for the meaning; opposite is the translation.
Yellow: show parallel passages
Orange with blue arrow: show added information
More importantly for this thread - the same can be done for the TTC:
https://ctext.org/dao-de-jing#n11592
The dictionary:
https://ctext.org/dictionary.pl?if=en&id=11592
I am taking time out from the thread but following closely, reading beyond...
I include this in the hope that it is helpful:
https://iep.utm.edu/zhuangzi/
Quoting Steve Coutinho
[emphasis added]
* wandering off now *
I attempt here to write a short story-form lesson.
Welcome to what was.
What will be may not be.
Within a warm place comes warmth.
Ride, jump and be.
See where the flower manifests.
Time struggles to remember.
Something a little more complex...
Life tied mort, wallow in tame facts.
Catch, rip, lease, mellow stomach loch.
Marble fine leap stim, move leave.
A story does have logic to it, even a report of events does. Action occurs in a sequence, for starters. A narrative necessarily has characters, affect, shape, etc. We take for granted the logic of narrative, just like we take for granted the logic of language, and of physical reality, and bracket it all out of our experience. We assume agreement on these aspects of the story. That’s what logic IS.
Thanks for the tip. The advantage of Google is that it doesn’t just offer it’s most likely translation, but a range of alternatives. This gives me a clearer view of the different kind (quality) of ideas that Chinese speakers have in constituting different concepts, rather than assuming they think the same way that I do and so compose concepts in the same way.
At first glance, I think the biggest difference between the TTC and the Zhuangzi is the narrative composition. This gives readers an opportunity to relate to the text on another level, one that isn’t offered in the TTC. But I think the simplistic structure of the TTC is deliberately confronting. If a verse or a phrase doesn’t make sense in relation to our experiences, then it’s inviting us to reconsider how we structure our understanding of the world - how we interrelate logic, quality and affect (chi) in this instance. To do that, we need to defer to the ‘natural’ logic and quality of the language only, in the same way that it seems Lao Tzu did, and pay attention to the affect of the text on our chi. This seems to me both more difficult and in some ways easier to do approaching it from outside the language. When I break a concept down into composite ideas or quality, the logic-quality-affect structure makes much more sense.
Smith left the room in a huff, his shadow flitting across the wall in the soft light of the setting sun. I looked outside the small window in the room and caught sight of some birds probably on their way to roost for the coming night. The sky was clear except for a few scattered clouds that were glowing red and orange. I picked up the cup and gulped down the remaining coffee.
A sample prose for your consideration. Where's the logic in it? Which are the premises and which are the conclusions?
Quoting ghostlycutter
:up: I'm fond of verse/poetry but not as good as I'd like to be in creating them.
Ellen Marie Chen[/b]
[i]Eliminate sagacity (sheng), discard knowledge (chih),
People will be profited (li) a hundredfold.
Eliminate humanity (jen), discard righteousness (i),
People will again practice filial piety and parental love.
Abolish artistry (ch'iao), discard profit-seeking (li),
Robbers and thieves shall disappear.
These three pairs adorn (wen) what is deficient (pu tsu).
Therefore, let there be the advice:
Look to the undyed silk, hold on to the uncarved wood (p'u),
Reduce your sense of self (szu) and lessen your desires (yü).[/i]
Stefan Stenudd
[i]Abandon wisdom, discard knowledge,
And people will benefit a hundredfold.
Abandon benevolence, discard duty,
And people will return to the family ties.
Abandon cleverness, discard profit,
And thieves and robbers will disappear.
These three, though, are superficial, and not enough.
Let this be what to rely on:
Behave simply and hold on to purity.
Lessen selfishness and restrain desires.
Abandon knowledge and your worries are over.[/i]
Verse 19 is similar to Verse 18, although it’s sliced a bit differently.
Line by line - Ellen Marie Chen
[b][i]Eliminate sagacity (sheng), discard knowledge (chih),
People will be profited (li) a hundredfold.[/i][/b]
Back to knowledge. Here are some different translations of the first line:
There is some ambiguity in these lines. Both knowledge and wisdom are bad? In Verse 18, Chen talked about “intelligence and knowledge.” It seems like the argument against wisdom, if there is one, is different than knowledge or intelligence. We’ve had a difference of opinion about what the TTC says about knowledge. Possibility wrote:
Quoting Possibility
I’ve said knowledge distracts us from the path that Lao Tzu is trying to show us. Flipping that, gaining knowledge is not the way to follow the Tao. I think you could also say that “knowledge” means “conventional knowledge.” The conventional way of categorizing and classifying things is misleading. I’ve also said that it seems to me that knowledge is connected to desire. This is from Chen’s Verse 48.
[i]To pursue (wei) learning one increases daily.
To pursue (wei) Tao one decreases daily.
To decrease and again to decrease,
Until one arrives at not doing (wu-wei).[/i]
This seems at the heart of the matter to me. Knowledge is taking in. Following the Tao is sending out, emptying, surrendering.
[b][i]Eliminate humanity (jen), discard righteousness (i),
People will again practice filial piety and parental love.[/i][/b]
I think this is consistent with other verses, such as this from Lin’s Verse 38:
[i]Therefore, the Tao is lost, and then virtue
Virtue is lost, and then benevolence
Benevolence is lost, and then righteousness
Righteousness is lost, and then etiquette[/i]
This from Lin’s Verse 18 seems contradictory.
[i]The six relations are not harmonious
There is filial piety and kind affection[/i]
Here filial piety is shown as a good thing. In Verse 18 it seems to be on a level with etiquette or ritual – a formal show needed when authentic family feeling is lost.
[b][i]Abolish artistry (ch'iao), discard profit-seeking (li),
Robbers and thieves shall disappear.[/i][/b]
In other translations “industry” and “skill” are used instead of “artistry.” “Industry” could mean business. That would make sense with “profit.” As for skill – it makes me think of the verse from the Zhuangzi that someone linked to. In that, the butcher’s skill was used as a model for behavior in accordance with the Tao. The butcher says the following:
What I care about is the Way, which goes beyond skill. When I first began cutting up oxen, all I could see was the ox itself. After three years I no longer saw the whole ox. And now — now I go at it by spirit and don’t look with my eyes. Perception and understanding have come to a stop and spirit moves where it wants. I go along with the natural makeup, strike in the big hollows, guide the knife through the big openings, and following things as they are. So I never touch the smallest ligament or tendon, much less a main joint.
[b][i]These three pairs adorn (wen) what is deficient (pu tsu).
Therefore, let there be the advice:
Look to the undyed silk, hold on to the uncarved wood (p'u),
Reduce your sense of self (szu) and lessen your desires (yü).[/i][/b]
Uncarved wood has been used in other verses to refer to unprocessed, undivided reality or even the Tao. As I’ve noted, I have a tendency to simplify things. I like to say that anything that refers to an origin or purity means the Tao. I think this loses some of the subtleties of the text. Then again, there’s this from Chen Verse 32 – “Tao everlasting (ch'ang) is the nameless uncarved wood (p'u).” And then there’s “undyed silk.” That means the Tao too. Everything means the Tao.
We’ve discussed “desire” before. In a way that’s somewhat similar to Buddhism, Lao tzu identifies desire as the primary obstruction to following the path.
I agree that there is no logic to the TTC or the Tao. Others posting on this thread disagree. And yet, here we all, or most of us, are - trying to understand the TTC. I assume the original audience was scholars and government officials. It would seem to me they were trying to understand also.
Quoting ghostlycutter
I'm not sure what you mean by this. If you mean that there is no lasting benefit from following the path, I disagree.
Quoting Possibility
Without getting back into the whole idea/concept thing, I really disagree with that. Nothing resides within the Tao.
Quoting Possibility
I went back and looked. I'm not sure what you meant or how it applies to this point.
Quoting Possibility
Yes, I have tried to define "objective reality" before. This is from a discussion of mine from four years ago called "Deathmatch – Objective Reality vs. the Tao."
Quoting T Clark
Quoting Possibility
As I claimed in my old discussion, I find the Tao a more useful concept than objective reality. I think it is fruitful to claim that objective reality doesn't exist, although I'll say again, both "Tao" and "objective reality" are metaphysical entities. We decide which to use, if we use them at all. The universe is also one of the 10,000 things. Can you name something that isn't part of the universe? A suitcase full of shirts is one of the 10,000 things. So are each of the shirts.
Quoting Possibility
I'm not certain of what Lao Tzu means, but I am certain of how I experience the world. If I got to that place by following a path which is not the one he described, won't that be ironic. But I don't think that's what happened. You seem just as certain as I do.
No to frustrate you, but the Tao has no rationality either. Forgive me for this, but I'm serious - the Tao that can be rationalized is not the eternal Tao. It can't be spoken. It can't be understood. It can't be analyzed. It can't be divided. It has no parts. Nothing is inside it. You can't think about it. It's not a concept or an idea. It's just a big blob, except the blob that can be spoken is not the eternal blob.
To be a nitpicker, that isn't really a story, it's a description. Also - it does have a structure. It's is linear and chronological. It follows the rules of English grammar.
Quoting T Clark
There is ambiguity here, for the same reason I have been arguing: all these scholars are bringing their own experience into their interpretation. I’m not arguing in opposition to you. I do agree that gaining knowledge is not THE way to follow the Tao. But I disagree that the TTC is saying ‘knowledge is bad’, and certainly not that ‘wisdom is bad’. I will continue to call out your use of a ‘good-bad’ dichotomy in your interpretation of the TTC, because I believe this is your subjective experience of the text, and therefore not inherent in the TTC - especially since the text portrays this dichotomy as arbitrary limitations set by human perception. That others have a similar experience is not a sufficient argument in my book, and qualifying an interpretation of ‘knowledge’ as ‘conventional knowledge’ (based on what?), which equals ‘categorising and classifying’, etc sounds a lot like apologist methodology of ‘playing with metaphors’, so you’ll pardon me for my skepticism here.
Quoting T Clark
There is a lot about this verse that I’ve struggled with. The main difficulty I have is that the first character, jué, translated here as ‘abandon’, is translated everywhere else as ‘absolutely’. Literally everywhere else, except for this verse of the TTC. To me, with my limited experience of hermeneutics, this is a red flag. It says that there’s more to this than the translations allow. With hundreds of translations disagreeing with me, I’m aware that I’m in the minority here - but everything I understand tells me to trust the original text over the translations. And further research shows that the quality attributed to the character jué is actually about cutting someone off at an upper limit.
So, while I will argue that ‘abandon’ is an unsatisfactory translation, I don’t think it’s as simple as choosing wisdom/learning over knowledge, benevolence/humanity over duty/righteousness and cleverness/artistry over profit-seeking, either. It’s more about recognising that wisdom is not about maximising knowledge, humanity is not about maximising righteousness, and cleverness is not about maximising profit. To ‘lessen selfishness and restrain desires’ is not the same as abandoning the self or eliminating desire. Pulling back from knowledge short of pursuing intelligence as the aim in itself will eliminate most of our modern worries. We don’t have to return to the Dark Ages or long for ignorance by seeking to ‘abandon knowledge’.
I think we’re a little too keen to accept that Daoism longs for some past ‘golden age’ of ignorance, or is even particularly conservative. Wisdom is about understanding when NOT to pursue knowledge, as well as when it’s needed.
‘The Tao’ and ‘objective reality’ are not concepts, they’re both placeholder names for what cannot be named, and it’s fruitful to claim that neither of them exist. We talk about them as possible notions, not as concepts, because they are indeterminate at this level. Mistaking them for concepts is what creates confusion in understanding how ‘the Tao’ relates to ‘the 10,000 things’. But I’m not going to get into a discussion with you about the notion of ‘objective reality’ here. I understand them as the same notion described in an alternative discourse, so I think our current discussion will suffice.
Quoting T Clark
I do see a difference of certainty here in you telling me that I can’t relate to the Tao - that “that’s not how it works”. I don’t think anyone can be certain that they are even accurately describing how they experience the world, however certain they might feel about the experience itself, beyond language. As soon as you use concepts, you’re assuming that how I qualitatively constitute each concept is identical to yours, but there’s no certainty that I do. This is the difficulty with discussing the TTC in terms of experience.
You may not think that anyone can relate to the Tao, and from your perspective that would seem to be the case - but this doesn’t mean I can’t. It just means that you can’t see how it’s possible. But I’m saying that I can see how it’s possible. I don’t need to be certain of that, and I don’t need you to agree.
As am I. As are you.
Quoting Possibility
It's not that gaining knowledge is not THE way, it's not A way. You can't follow the Tao by gaining knowledge. Gaining knowledge distracts from the path.
Quoting Possibility
I believe that Lao Tzu is saying that gaining knowledge is not the way to experience the Tao. Turning away from our intellect is necessary to follow the path. Knowledge distracts us. There's a contradiction here - Lao Tzu points out the arbitrariness of human judgement of good and bad, beautiful and ugly. At the same time he shows a preference for actions that help us follow the path as opposed to those which distract us. I'll stop saying good/bad, but that doesn't change the fact that there is a value judgement.
Quoting Possibility
Of course it's my subjective experience of the text. I've been saying that from the beginning - following the path is about experience, not knowledge. I'm trying to tune my experience to the signal Lao Tzu is sending. Your understanding is also inseparable from you subjective experience.
Quoting Possibility
I don't know if Lao Tzu had that in mind or not, but I thought it was worth mentioning. It's another way to look at it. It's another possible shade of meaning on "knowledge." I've said this many times - for me, since he can't talk about it directly, Lao Tzu is painting an impressionistic picture of the Tao.
Quoting Possibility
As I've said, I have put myself in the hands of the translators, all of them together. I can accept your opinion as another one of those shades of meaning to be taken into account, but I won't discard what the other translators say.
Quoting Possibility
Except I think it's more than that. We're not just talking about moderation in all things, although I'm sure Lao Tzu was all for that. He's not saying "do this, don't do that." He's saying "if you want to follow the Tao, this is what will work." I think this is pretty unequivocal:
[i]To pursue (wei) learning one increases daily.
To pursue (wei) Tao one decreases daily.
To decrease and again to decrease,
Until one arrives at not doing (wu-wei).[/i]
I disagree. For me, objective reality is a thing. It exists and can be named. It's like an apple or an electron.
Quoting Possibility
Ok with me.
Quoting Possibility
Before you lecture me about certainty, I'll remind you that you told me it was irresponsible for me to express an opinion about the TTC that's different than yours. I'm telling you what I think Lao Tzu is saying.
Quoting Possibility
Who, other than me, can describe my experience? Can I be unaware of my own experience? Interesting question.
Quoting Possibility
That is the fundamental problem with language beyond this particular situation. You and I are struggling with that here. But I also think we have fundamental disagreements about what Lao Tzu was trying to say, above and beyond language issues.
Quoting Possibility
As I've said, in my view the TTC is about experience. How can we avoid talking about it?
Quoting Possibility
As I've noted, you and I have disagreements about what Lao Tzu was trying to show us. That's no surprise and it doesn't bother me.
Quoting Possibility
The most vivid experience I have is one I've described before. I experience inspirations to action arising from within me which I picture as a bubbling well. Unless my conscious will stops me, I act on them without intention. I interpret those actions as wu wei.
That's not what I meant, what I meant was more poetic.
The Author has reduced the face print to nothing, to draw more attention to meaning alone, like an art piece, there are pleasurable sights and fashionable enlightenment.
I actually have a question about this.
If one can't speak about the Tao or know about it, what is one speaking of? It seems like like trying to capture a mirage in one's hands.
This is my understanding. Other's disagree.
You're exactly right. The opening lines of the Tao Te Ching are:
[i]The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named is not the eternal name[/i]
So, the book is words about something that can't be put into words. Lao Tzu recognized the irony. What I believe is that Lao Tzu's purpose is to help us experience something that comes before words, the Tao. The focus should be on the experience, not the meaning of the words. As I said, others on the thread disagree with me.
Does intuition has to play a role in this, as in, I have a particular kind of experience that reveals something to me about the world, but as soon I express it, it necessarily gets lost in the expression?
Yes, although there's a lot more going on than that in the Tao Te Ching. Getting "lost in the expression" has consequences in our lives.
Are you still smarting from that? That is NOT what I said at all. I have tried to clarify, and your response was that you’d prefer to ignore it. This is not ignoring it. Either we let it go, or lay it out, because it’s clearly still affecting you.
That's a nice succinct intro. I am too Western and modern for this approach but I have enjoyed the discussion. Although it does surprise me that something so ambiguous and ostensibly benign should lead to acrimony as it has here. The battles over interpretation are not just for the profane.
This thread has gone for a month and almost 700 posts. I think we're doing pretty well. There has been a lot of frustration about differences in understanding, but no acrimony that I can see.
I’m not saying it is an aspect of the Tao, but of experiencing the Tao. You can’t deny this quality without diminishing the experience.
Quoting T Clark
Language is not going to explain this, because you have to put yourself into it. This is what Lao Tzu understood. We are not separate from this ‘big blob’ that is the Tao. So you can continue to argue that anything I name is not part of this ‘big blob’, but either everything is and the blob is the indeterminate whole in which we are indistinguishable, or nothing is part of it, and everything except the blob exists (10,000 things). I’m saying that whether we experience, relate to or follow the Tao, there is rationality, quality and energy somewhere in this, which cannot be bracketed out. Any description, expression or instruction that is not inclusive of all three is not the Tao.
This is the dilemma that Lao Tzu recognised. No matter how much he included of himself in his writing, something would always be missing. This was the energy (attention and effort) directed elsewhere or without result as each stroke is made: not-doing (wu-wei). And no matter how forceful his instructions, something would always be beyond it. This is the energy (attention and effort) directed towards not following the Tao: not-intending or functional emptiness (wu yòng). Likewise, no matter how clear his description, something will always be missing from the relation. This is the energy (attention and effort) directed towards not relating: ignorance, or an upper limit of knowledge (jué xué).
These three will show us the Tao, but they are not the Tao. They are the difference we are invited to embody between the Tao and what Lao Tzu has accomplished in the TTC. The idea is not to understand them each as something, but to embody one or another in a structural relation with the TTC, in order to achieve a structure of ‘oneness’ with the Tao. When we embody not-doing, we experience the Tao through the TTC as all movement and change inclusive of our action, and we will never fail to achieve. When we embody a functional emptiness, we follow the Tao through the TTC as fullness inclusive of our existence, and we will never be without. And when we embody not-knowing, we relate to the Tao through the TTC as wisdom inclusive of what we think we know, and we will never misunderstand.
I figured our aim here is to understand. So, abandoning what I know, I have been deferring to the original text of the TTC as the only source of wisdom. If it’s not in there, it’s not accurate. If what I think I know conflicts with the text in its purest form, then the text must be correct. If what the translations or anyone else here is saying conflicts with the original text, then the text must be correct. It feels very unusual to do it this way, but the result is a clarity that can’t be expressed in language. And I can’t claim knowledge of anything, all I can do is appeal to the original text. It’s a strange feeling, and I understand that you assume my words are my personal opinion. There’s no way I can get around that, except to observe a simplified structure of the Chinese text, reduced to logic and quality, with all affect bracketed out.
If you look at the Zhuangzi in comparison, its narrative composition makes it impossible to bracket out affect without ignoring elements of the text. Names exist outside of the text for people and their occupations, assuming a complex social structure that implies hierarchies of value and judgement. People feel, think, speak and make mistakes. But the TTC is structured carefully so that no affect, no feeling, emotion or value judgement is necessarily implicit in the text (except where speech is indicated, and very specific verses such as 20, written in the first person). I do think this is deliberate.
But if I’m exploring only the English translation of the TTC, then the aspect I can effectively bracket out is rationality. In doing so, I can only experience the Tao in not-doing: stillness, meditative practice, unconscious randomness, etc. Everything else requires logic. I can observe and restructure my thoughts and feelings to align with the TTC only in this stillness. But this means that how I consciously express myself or act then lacks logical relevance to the Tao. It is constructed from a logic that is not the Tao - it is mine. It has not come under scrutiny in relation to the TTC, freed from affect or subjectivity. The logic underlying my words and actions remains pretty much how it suits me best, regardless of the TTC.
Shouldn't we stop reading the Tao Te Ching at this point?
Ok. You can’t follow the Tao by gaining knowledge as a possession. You can’t experience the Tao by using knowledge. But you can’t relate to the Tao by ignoring information: not as knowledge to be gained, but as relational structure to be understood.
I’ll get there...
I think that referring to the Tao as ‘knowledge in its truest form’ overlooks what the TTC says (and what we have been discussing here) about knowledge. I can relate to this - I also leapt to the defence of ‘knowledge’ here, thinking that any effort to understand the TTC was being dismissed as pointless, and that we were in danger of promoting ignorance.
But I don’t think that Lao Tzu projects ‘his knowledge’ upon his readers. I think, like Socrates, he would probably claim to know nothing. It isn’t about what he knows, but about how he structures a rendered expression of reality so that one need not ‘know’ anything to understand. And, in fact, that in order to understand, we must recognise our own lack of knowledge. Any knowledge we think we have is distorted by our limited sensory capacity, our desire for what appears lacking and our fear of being wrong.
I think what Lao Tzu understood was how to render the Tao as a stable and all-inclusive three-fold reality. His true gift was in structuring the TTC so that nothing is ever located outside of this system, regardless of what we may learn. Others have tried and failed to render absolute reality with such simplistic and eternal elegance. That someone thousands of years ago understood with so little scientific knowledge suggests that it isn’t knowledge that begs to be understood.
I think if you'll read Verse 82, which is left out of all but one version of the TTC, things will be clearer. It's known as Lao Tzu's lost verse:
[i]Hey you gettin' drunk
So sorry, I got you sussed
Hey you smokin' mother nature
This is a bust
Hey hung up old Mr. Normal
Don't try to gain my trust
'Cause you ain't gonna follow me
Any of those ways
Although you think you must[/i]
But seriously folks - I think Lao Tzu was fully aware of what he was doing and recognized the irony. My take - He was trying to show us a path, not help us understand. He was trying to use words to guide us to a place where words don't work. So, no. We shouldn't necessarily stop reading.
I realized that there are two ways of interpreting these lines and they are:
1. There's more to it than meets the eye: We observe the world and there's a way that it appears to us but, we've learnt and we suspect, appearances can be deceiving or, more to the point, there's more to reality than just what it presents to us. On this reading, language has a blind spot as it were and there are certain aspects of reality that's beyond the reach of language. Laozi then is asking us to, at some point, abandon language for it's utterly useless if one aims to grasp the facets of reality that language can't tackle. Whether it's worth it is a pressing matter but if Laozi's stature is given due consideration, it seems almost priceless. The Toa That Is Eternal is definitely a prize worth the effort spent in attempts to acquire it.
2. What you see is it (but we refuse to accept it): Reality is exactly as it appears to us and that's all there is to it. The problem is that's a hard pill to swallow for us who yearn for something much grander. Language is fully capable of describing all of reality but that fails to quench the thirst for greatness that's become somewhat of a trademark of humanity. If this is Laozi's message then the Tao Te Ching serves as a warning to posterity that we should steer clear of fantasizing which to "...yearn for something much grander..." is. That he did it in so many words, 9510 to be exact, suggests that this simple message - cease and desist fantasy - isn't going to go down well with people and he needed to use every available linguistic resource (words) to put the point across to the readers. In this case, The Tao That Is Eternal is nothing more than a warning sign whose correct transaltion should be, in my humble opinion, "DON'T GO THERE!"
The "abandon language" option is not on the menu because of all the language invested in talking about the quality that is difficult to describe.
The idea that there is no hope of figuring out what is important is offset by a clear agenda to fix agendas that misunderstand the problem.
This text is not a testimony of skepticism but a call to act a certain way to achieve a better result than the others who talked this way.
Third option - This is my way of thinking about it. Others see it differently.
3. The Ground of Being, the Tao, was there before humans existed. Before any sentient life existed anywhere. Before god or gods existed. There were no electrons, planets, solar systems, galaxies, globular clusters, space. No quantum field. No universe. There was one unified, undifferentiated blob that wasn't really a blob, because "blob" did not exist. If there had been anyone around to take a picture, it would look pretty much exactly like it looks now. When sentient creatures who could use language evolved, the world came into existence. It was words that created what we call reality. Reality is a human concept, words.
Keep in mind, I'm not talking about magic or other supernatural phenomena. The Tao is a metaphysical concept - a way of looking at things. Taoists live in the same world we do. If you don't buy the description above, don't find it a useful way of seeing things. Fine. There are lots of other ways to experience the world. I find it very useful.
I'm sure there are more than just our three options too.
Agreed. However, note that language in re the Tao Te Ching is like a carpenter who, upon arriving at his workplace, discovers that the only tool that's available to faer is a hammer and thus, he must do everything he has to do, whether its got to do with nails or sawing planks, with the hammer; in other words, this hapless carpenter has no choice. Laozi, under one interpretation - attempting to express the inexpressible - was in a similar situation. He had a message that transcended language but, fortunately or unfortunately, the only way of getting that message across was language.
For my money, Laozi employing language in this fashion - to describe stuff that lies beyond the reach of language - is not entirely without merit. He was a clever man I suppose and all that he would have to do is probe the boundaries of language - stress language to the breaking point and what comes out at the other end is a, hopefully, better understanding of the limits of language and through that get a feel of, get some idea of, what Laozi means by "The Tao that can be named is not the Eternal Tao".
Quoting Valentinus
I have a different opinion on that matter. Just take a look at the contents and form of Laozi's great work the Tao Te Ching. I have little to say about the contents but what interests me is the form of the Tao Te Ching. I use the word "form" with the meaning it has in logic (arguments). The Tao Te Ching's form consists of contradicting what appears to be generalizations. In one sense, Laozi is trying to rattle our cage, the metaphor of a "cage" is apt, our cages invariably consisting of generalizations (prisons), rules as it were that are key to constructing a coherent/consistent worldview that we rely on to both make sense of reality and also to live out our lives in it. What Laozi achieves with this rather ingenious technique is to create a state of doubt as regards our understanding of the world. Every view of the world is hopelessly deficient and one will always, given enough time, encounter situations that overturn any given view. It reminds me of the children's game snakes & ladders. You might pride yourself in having made progress regarding your grasp of reality and what life, the world, the universe is all about but Laozi rigs the next die roll you make in such a way that you land on a snake's head and down you go, through the snake's belly, to where you began your journey on the board - the square marked number 1, utterly puzzled and violently frustrated that what you thought was true reality was just another illusion. In the simplest of terms, Laozi wants to shake our confidence - rock our boat and even intentionally causing it to capsize (in the worst weather conditions possible would be best) - and one message, among others I guess, is that we must be skeptical of what's bandied about as wisdom/knowledge.
Quoting T Clark
Excelente Senor/Senora! Kudos to you for seeing that. Percpetive.
Quoting T Clark
if you read my reply to Valentinus above, the Tao is exactly the opposite of what you say it is viz. it is not "...a way of looking at things". In fact it goes to great lengths to disabuse us of the belief that there's "...a way of looking at things" that's complete (everything can be comprehended) and consistent (free of contradictions). In a way the Tao Te Ching is like Godel's Incompleteness Theorems. :chin:
It is one way of seeing reality. It includes everything, anything, so it is complete. The words may seem contradictory, but the vision and the path are straightforward, pragmatic, down-to-earth, every day, meat and potatoes. You're trying to make it more than it is or was intended to be.
And that brings us to what I said earlier:
Quoting TheMadFool
I think Lao Tzu engaged the Chinese system of language in its purest, most straightforward format as the framework for an expression of reality that is fully transferable. For years, philosophers such as Russell and Peirce have tried to find a way to bring alphanumeric language to a logical simplicity in describing reality, that would minimise its ambiguity of meaning between different experiencing subjects. What Peirce in particular was working on is a more complicated version of what Lao Tzu had managed thousands of years ago: an irreducible triadic relation. The beauty of Lao Tzu’s version is that we are able to position ourselves in all three aspects (logic, quality, affect), and so refine and correct our interaction with, as well as our experience and understanding of, reality.
Most texts are structured to control meaning, to limit the freedom of the experiencing subject in interpreting the text by incorporating the value, significance or potential perceived by the author in the choice of word. The TTC doesn’t do this. This appears to be consistent with other ancient Chinese texts, with no use for a copulative and very few sentence structures linking verbs with predicates. Chinese characters usually express what I refer to as the quality of an idea, or what has been differentiated from the names of things by Mohist scholars as ‘kinds’. It is the practice of ‘naming’ - what was a Chinese process of officially assigning cultural hierarchies of value to things, families, people, etc - to which the TTC seems most strongly opposed. Rather, it appears to be deliberately structured so that judgements of value, significance and potential remain ambiguous, in the realm of probability. This makes it difficult to translate into English, where guidance for the reader on affected judgement is incorporated into many of our words and concepts.
But it is in this unusual reluctance to reduce language to concepts that the TTC comes into its own. When value is ambiguous, the reader/translator assigns it arbitrarily, based on cultural conventions (similar to ‘naming’) AND/OR on their own experience at the point of interaction with the text. The point of setting it out this way is to be introspectively aware of affect (desire) as it occurs, to pay attention to where we draw our judgements of value, significance and potential from, and why. This purpose is suggested later in the first verse:
[i]Therefore, always (ch'ang) without desire (wu-yü),
In order to observe (kuan) the hidden mystery (miao);
Always (ch'ang) with desire (yu-yü),
In order to observe the manifestations (chiao).[/i] (trans. Ellen Marie Chen)
I think maybe it isn’t so much that reality is more than meets the eye, but that it’s more than language can describe. The structure of the TTC is designed so that the reader is theoretically able to shift ‘outlook’ between what is ‘subtle/indigenous/wonderful’ and what is a ‘boundary’ (like an event horizon?), and in doing so recognise the Way.
This interesting article on the special features of Chinese logic provides some background.
I share your appreciatation of Lao Tsu. However, I feel you are misunderstanding his metaphysics.
For instance, you say " Part of that understanding is that the description of reality in the TTC is not true or false. It’s a metaphysical description."
If a metaphysical description is not true or false then it is meaningless. Some care is needed with the notion of 'true'. Lao Tsu's description is rigorous and demonstrably true in dialectical logic, but it is not true in the sense that it truly describes what cannot be described.
He say elsewhere that true words seem paradoxical. For the reasons given above some translators prefer 'Rigorous words seem paradoxical'. This means that a metaphysical theory may be true,(in the sense of rigorous) but only if it seems paradoxical.
His neutral or 'non-dual' metaphysical scheme seems paradoxical and speaking casually I'd say it is true. But in metaphysics, as in physics, we're not looking for the 'true' theory just the best. It is logical processs of inference to the best explanation. To know it a theory is true we would have to abandon metaphysics for Yoga and self-enquiry.
Unless we are a serious practitioner a study of metaphysics as a science of logic is indespensible to an understanding of Lao Tsu. if we know why true words seem paradoxical then we understand both him and metaphysics. It is only because Lao Tsu's metaphysical view is a 'true' model of Reality that true words seem paradoxical. He explains the language of mysticism and the Perennial philosophy, which is well-known for seeming paradoxical. .
Note that the statement 'The Tao cannot be spoken' fails his test for true words. Elsewhere he says 'Tao must be spoken', and only read together would these atomic statements be true. We must speak of it, but always be aware that our words cannot capture its true nature. Blblically-speaking this is why we cannot build a tower of logical inferences all the way to Heaven. When we try the result is the sort of endless babble we see in academic philosophy. .
His metaphysics is actually very simple. All positive theories would be false just as their failure in logic implies, such that the Ultimate lies beyond the categories of thought and speech. This is a neutral; metaphysical theory and in principle it explains everything.
This is the metaphysical key that unlocks the meaning of the Tao Te Ching. It is the doctrine that Consciouness is Reality and All is One beyond all division and distinction. Better known these days as 'non-dualism'. .
Pardon so many words. I got carried away. .
. . .
Agreed. Given my tendency to say "Xing without Xing" in just about every response, it would be unreasonable for me to argue with you when you talk about hoping without hoping.
Quoting Possibility
Agreed.
Quoting Possibility
Or both. I'm serious.
Quoting Possibility
That's not how I see it, although I'm not sure whether or not this is just a difference of language. Unless you mean that rationality is the same as what the TTC calls "naming," which would make sense.
Quoting Possibility
I'm not sure what you are referring to.
Quoting Possibility
I think this difference between you and me is the result of how we see the TTC differently. I think Lao Tzu is trying to show us the way to follow, not tell us about it. The words are incidental. He is painting a picture with words. I'm trying to see the picture, not understand the words.
Quoting Possibility
We've discussed this. I'm not criticizing your way of seeing things, but that's not how I'm doing it. I'm using the translations as a group as the basis of my understanding.
Quoting Possibility
I agree with all of this. I think this is why I like the TTC so much and have not gotten into the Zhuangzi. Also - I acknowledge that the value judgements I've identified in the TTC are my judgements based on the situations described in the text.
Quoting Possibility
I think the path shown us in the TTC is the normal way people are made to operate. Lao Tzu points out that babies follow the Tao without knowledge or thought. Logic, words, rationality, fear, hope, desire, and all the rest are overlays on that original simplicity. I think some of that is inevitable for social, language-using creatures. For me, experiencing the Tao means removing some of those overlays. I feel like I can do that partially, sometimes.
Quoting Possibility
Can you describe or give an example of how the logic underlying your words and actions works. I'm not trying to put you on the spot. I've tried to do the same for you when I describe the bubbling spring image I feel sometimes when I act.
I think this is a good way of putting it.
I disagree. We clearly have different understandings of what "metaphysical" means. You say "Lao Tsu's description is rigorous and demonstrably true in dialectical logic." I don't see that. Can you show me?
Quoting FrancisRay
Instead of "best" I would say "most useful in this particular situation," with the understanding that other ways of seeing things may be more useful in different situations.
Quoting FrancisRay
I don't understand.
Quoting FrancisRay
I don't know whether I understand what you are saying or not. Can you briefly describe what you think Lao Tzu's metaphysics is.
In an academic context metaphysics is science of logic which uses a process of abduction (inference to the best explanation) by which we identify and reject theories that cause logical contradictions. Here 'best' means best by the objective standards of analysis.
I cannot show you here how the metaphysics of the TTC is provable in logic, but if you check out the Buddhist philosopher/sage Nagarjuna and his text Fundamental Wisdom of the middle Way this is the most famous proof. He demonstrates that all other metaphysical positions are logically absurd. (Just as metaphyscians everywhere discover). .
I think if you see what Nagarjuna is proving, which is the absurdity of all positive metaphysical theories, then you'll see that Lao Tsu carefully avoids ever endorsing one. Thus Nagarjuna explains the metaphysics of the TTC, and also that of the Upanishads, Middle Way Buddhism and more generally the Perennial philosophy. .
The basic point is that Lao Tsu endorses non-dualism, and this translates into metaphtysics as a neutral theory. This is the theory or doctrine endorsed by the mystics everywhere, and it is the only theory for which their knowledge of reality is possible.
You may have doubts about all this but what I;m saying here is not in any way idiosyncratic.There is only one metaphysical theory for which true words seem paradoixcal, and it is a neutral one. . .
. .
. .
I agree with this as the overarching idea. But in order to be or interact, we fall either side of this coin. This is unavoidable. ‘Do or do not - there is no try’.
Quoting T Clark
I’m referring to the act of writing down the TTC. When we create something in the world, we cannot put all of ourselves and the world (ie. the blob) into it. With every interaction, we embody an aspect of the indeterminate whole that is necessarily missing from what we create. The energy (attention and effort) that keeps us alive cannot simultaneously be directed into what we create.
Quoting T Clark
Right - you’re aiming to experience the Way, not to understand it, and not to follow it. Here’s the thing: following the Way involves BOTH experiencing and understanding. The Way is neither in the experiencing nor in the understanding, but in the instructive difference between the two: effectively, it is the issue we have with each other’s methodology here.
Quoting T Clark
What I’ve described here refers specifically to experience, from a perspective of understanding. Here’s a question for you: do you experience logic? Not understand and not adhere to, but experience it - does it have a quality to it, or a feeling? If what you’re doing is simply experiencing the world, is there ever logic in that? Not just in reference to the TTC or the Tao, but in any experience...
I looked up "Fundamental Wisdom of the middle Way" on Wikipedia. It looks interesting, so I put it on my list of books to read. Some of the quotations provided were consistent with my understanding of the Tao Te Ching and reality. I love the Tao Te Ching and it's view of the world is consistent with how I see things, but I'll stick to my position that that is a choice I've made because I find it useful rather than any absolute judgement. I'll read the book and see if it changes my mind.
Edit - I downloaded a copy of the book. Can you steer me to the metaphysical argument you referenced.
In a metaphysical sense, to ‘understand’ is to align with a way of thinking about or conceptualising reality. It’s an internal restructuring of ideas, and can be achieved simply by trusting in an alternative model or expression of reality, such as the TTC.
In a more academic sense, though, to ‘understand’ is to present knowledge in explaining or supporting the argument for a restructuring of reality. It is to provide ‘proof’ of this metaphysical understanding. But this academic sense of understanding is not required in following the Way, and it does distract us from the path.
I have engaged in attempts at explanation here, mainly in my references to Kant, quantum physics and Barrett’s theories in relation to affect, among others. My aim in doing so was to show that, firstly, there IS an alternative construction of reality in the TTC - one that does not align easily with conventional Western logic. Secondly, I was trying to point out that this alternative construction of reality does contend with, and arguably help to dissolve, current dilemmas in Western thinking. So, even if we have no intention of following the Way, its structure of conceptual reality is not as ‘a-rational’ as it first seems. It is more that conventional (Western) logic is inaccurate, insufficient beyond classical physics, for an holistic understanding of reality (ToE).
I also recognise that understanding the Way is not following the Way. What is missing is chi, the energy of life, one’s distribution of attention and effort. I have suggested that we can discuss how chi (or affect) fits into this by drawing from experience, but that perhaps we need to separate subjective experience into quality and energy (and the TTC into quality and logic) before this starts to make sense. I’ve (eventually) noticed that you’re not really exploring the TTC on this level. In fact, I get the sense that your aim is to recognise an experience of the Tao as a guide in those situations when conventional logic is insufficient. This seems to be a common Western approach to Taoism and other Eastern philosophies.
I just thought we should be clear that experiencing the Way is not following the Way, any more than understanding it is. Giving the impression that one can follow the Way simply by experiencing it is what I’ve been taking particular issue with here, but I’ve not been very clear in this. I have no doubt that many of the scholars who painstakingly translated the TTC do experience the Tao subjectively, but whenever they expressed this as an understanding of the TTC, they’ve necessarily applied at least some conventional Western logic to their choice of words (inherent in the English language). When readers then experience this understanding, they’re aligning with this Western way of thinking, not with that of the TTC. They might also experience the Tao, but they’re not entirely following the Way, because they only understand an English interpretation of ‘the Tao that can be spoken’, which is not structured the same as Lao Tzu’s TTC.
I recognise that your efforts to bring together many different interpretations does go some way towards a broader understanding of the TTC, but not of its structure - and I realise that you’re okay with that. You’ve said that systematic errors are not a problem for you, because your aim is to express your experience of the Tao, not to understand it. But if you say that you’re following the Tao, then I may dispute your accuracy from time to time, to which you will say that you don’t understand and you aren’t trying to. I think perhaps you’re following it to the extent that you’re willing to understand it, which is distinct from your working knowledge of logic - beyond the perceived effectiveness of the hammer, so to speak. Personally, I think any restructuring of reality in understanding the Tao goes deeper than this, but I accept that mine may be a minority view, lacking in clear explanation and relatively untested.
We interact in the world of the 10,000 things.
Quoting Possibility
I'm ok with this, but I don't see the relevance to our discussion. Are you talking about wu wei and how it grows out of the Tao?
Quoting Possibility
I say I am trying to experience the Tao and not understand it, but I acknowledge there's more to it than that. I'm an intellectual. A lot of how I interact with the world is through my mind and, ultimately, words. As @TheMadFool points out, we work with the tools we have. Lao Tzu did too. Am I talking about the same thing you are?
Quoting Possibility
I experience the working of my mind. Do I experience logic? Interesting question. I don't think I do. I guess most of what I know I know intuitively. I previously described an image I have of a cloud of knowledge that I think of when I think of the Tao. I've been thinking about that for a while - how we gain knowledge by osmosis. I'm far enough in the Barrett book to be interested in what she calls statistical learning as a candidate. Don't hold me to that. I've just gotten to that part.
I do call up what I think of as rational thought when I have to justify or communicate my understanding to others or deal with a lot of information in a documentable way. I spent a lot of time doing that as an engineer. How does that feel? Good. Have you ever written stories or poetry. Kind of like that. I have this vision of pouring information in a funnel at the top of my head and then watching as words come out on the computer. It's happening now. I'm really interested in what I'm going to write. Sometimes it comes as a surprise.
Does this use words, even ones you only speak to yourself? For me, understanding means words.
Quoting Possibility
This sounds like what I call "rational thought" in the last paragraph of my previous post.
Quoting Possibility
I have no problem with this. It's interesting to me how foundational themes found in eastern philosophies show up as relatively minor themes in western philosophy, e.g. Tao vs. noumena. Also, what Barrett writes interests me, although I don't think it has a lot to say to me about the TTC.
Quoting Possibility
I agree with this strongly. As I've said, I see the Tao as a concept as a good replacement for the idea of objective reality. I think that has profound implications for our understanding of how the world works, e.g. in science. I won't go into this any more here.
Quoting Possibility
As I've said, I don't think seeing the TTC through the eyes of Barrett or other scientists is useful, at least not for my purposes. I also think equating chi with affect is is like equating the mind with the brain, which I reject. I'll think more about that.
Quoting Possibility
Are you implying that it's wrong or somehow not true to Lao Tzu's intentions? First, I doubt that. Second - it doesn't really matter. I've found a spiritual vision that matches my intellectual, perceptual, experiential, and emotional understanding of how things work.
Quoting Possibility
I'm not sure about this. I don't think you can follow the path without experiencing the Tao. Is that enough? Maybe? I think whatever value understanding the Tao has may be in helping to experience it. I'm out on a limb here. Over my head.
Quoting Possibility
Sure. I think that's inevitable. Then again, many of the translators are native Chinese speaking scholars. I am reluctant to second guess them. I'd guess my western way of seeing things is more of a barrier than the translations. My answer to that is that I sometimes have experiences that seem to match what Lao Tzu described. If that's not enough, it's at least enough for me.
Quoting Possibility
I certainly don't think I'm following the path in any rigorous or disciplined way. I just come back to what I said - I sometimes experience things that seem to match what Lao Tzu described. That's it. That's all I'll claim. I don't think I've ever claimed more. If I did, I was wrong.
Quoting Possibility
I think you may think I am claiming more than I actually am.
This is interesting to me. You use words such as ‘intuitively’ and ‘osmosis’, as if the knowledge just kind of turns up in your head. I’ve been aware recently that most people tend to perceive the world as particles, but I’ve always perceived it as waves (I couldn’t describe this difference until I looked at quantum physics). In this way, I can often follow the formation of knowledge through my past experiences. My son has a particle view - once he recognises knowledge as such, it’s like all relational structures collapse and only one possibility exists. I’ll admit it’s a more efficient way to learn, but he can’t always trace the source of his information or critically examine his rational process once his mind is made up. He just knows. In our family, he’s the strange one, but I think perhaps he might be more neuro-typical than I often give him credit for. I can be crippled by indecision, while he’s happy to follow a well-worn path of effective decision-making.
Yes, but we don’t necessarily interact as one of the 10,000 things. We can also interact as an indistinguishable aspect of the indeterminate whole. This is how I understand an experience of wu-wei: no resistance or effort, no consolidation of self, just harmonious movement with the world...
Quoting T Clark
That’s a strange way to describe it. I don’t see wu-wei as ‘growing out of the Tao’, but as completion of Tao - it’s the chi that is missing from the evidence of our actions. It’s what Lao Tzu draws our attention to, because it exists in the gap between the Tao and the 10,000 things.
I thought as much. No, for me, understanding can be beyond words. When I understand someone’s grief, putting it into words, even to myself, is profoundly insufficient to that understanding.
Quoting T Clark
I will say that I understand affect as more of a localised, ongoing and internal perception of chi. But I wouldn’t say that I equate them. The reason I keep using them alongside each other is because I can see how they would both apply in the situation, but they do so on different dimensional levels of awareness. I’m sorry if this is confusing - it’s how my mind works. Incidentally, I also perceive the brain to some extent as a localised, ongoing and external observation of mind - but that’s another discussion, so I’ll leave it there.
Quoting T Clark
No, you’re implying that I’m intending to judge your view, but I’m in no position to determine with any certainty what is wrong or true. My perspective is that I think you’re missing an aspect of what Lao Tzu was trying to show. But there isn’t much point, as you say. As long as it works for you, no one will convince you otherwise.
Quoting T Clark
I also don’t think you can follow the path without experiencing the Tao. I think the value in understanding the Tao is in aligning your logic, which does help to experience it, but also to follow it.
In an holistic view of reality, an observer is necessarily one aspect of the whole, but is unable to view itself as one of these aspects. A triadic relational model of reality is the most efficient and accurate - if the observer is indeterminate and can alternate between embodying two of these aspects. Embodying one will give it a view of the other two, but it can neither view itself, nor differentiate between the other two. But if it can embody one and then embody the other, and differentiate between the two perspectives, then the observer can differentiate between all three, and gain an accurate perspective of the reality in which it is an indeterminate aspect. This has to be the simplest model for truth.
Quoting T Clark
I don’t claim to be following the Tao rigorously, either. But I think I understand when I am and when I’m not, at least. This seems like I’m claiming more, but it isn’t. This is just because the TTC deliberately has no chi. So, while I have a pretty good idea of what he’s saying, it means that any failure to follow the Tao is mine alone. I can’t blame it on a misunderstanding, a lack of knowledge or experience. Something else is attracting my attention and effort, and I allow it. It still takes lots of practise to direct the flow of energy through your body.
I must apologise. I should have warned you not to rush out and buy Fundamental Wisdom. You may find it interesting but his argument is very difficult and tedious. All we need to know is that his argument has never been invalidated and it proves that all positive metaphysical theories are logically indefensible. If we know this then we need not read the argument. And we already know that philosophers generally endorse his result since it what makes metaphysics difficult. Kant, Bradley and Russell all reach the same result explicitly in their work, but all good philosophers arrive here since it is just a matter of logic. . .
The best commentary I know of is 'The Sun of Wisdom': Teachings on Nagarjuna's Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way by Tsultrim Gymaptso. I would avoid any that are written by non-Buddhist academics. .
His argument proceeds by listing metaphysical questions and showing that all their positive answers are absurd. The answer is never this, that, both or neither. He points us towards a fifth possibility, which is the idea that these questions are badly-formed and derived from misunderstandings. It is a logical proof of emptiness. . .
The connection with Lao Tsu is immediate. The statement 'True words seem paradoxical' is entirely explained by Nagarjuna. if we cannot endorse a positive theory then we must never make a positive statement about reality. To do this requires speaking in riddles. For instance, Heraclitus famously states 'We exits and exist-not'. As atomic statements both halves of this statement would be untrue and absurd. Together. they allow to describe reality with rigour. These words seem paradoxical. They are not actually so, however, and Lao Tsu does not suggest they are.
The claim that the Tao is unspeakable is also explained by Nagarjuna. If all positive theories are false then reality must be beyond conceptual fabrication and subject-predicate language.. Kant's 'thing-in-itself' has the same elusive properties.and this is not a coincidence. Nor is it a coincidence that the Buddha advises us to abandon all extreme theories. When we do this we endorse the teachings of Lao Tsu. .
The absurdity all positive theories leads western thinkers to the idea that metaphysics is impossible. It should lead them to a neutral metaphysical position but they don't often study this or even know of it since it is mysticism. Academic philosophers generally hold the view that Lao Tsu didn't know what he was talking about. I suppose they believe that one day they will prove this. It's a forlorn hope. .
So, I'm with you completely on the value of Lao Tsu. He explains metaphysics in fewer words than most people need just to define it.
. .
. . .
.
. . . .
Hence, the nature of the Universe can be discovered and experienced, but not fully translated into words as in the case of all feelings and emotions. One must feel loss to understand it, but words are inadequate. There is nothing mysterious in Daoism, just feelings and emotions to be discovered.
Don't worry, I found a free download.
Quoting FrancisRay
I'm interested in this question for two reasons - 1) I have spent a lot of time thinking and writing here about metaphysics. I've especially liked R.G. Collingwood. I have a well-developed idea of what metaphysics is and how it works. I'm interested in having that understanding challenged or expanded. 2) I strongly reject the idea that the Tao Te Ching and similar theories stand in any privileged position for understanding reality.
Quoting FrancisRay
Now I'll put this on my reading list. Still, if you can tell me where in "Fundamental Wisdom" the metaphysical argument you were discussing is, I'd like to take a look.
Quoting FrancisRay
I have no trouble with the lines that are considered absurd or paradoxical. I think I understand where they come from, although I'm interested in having that understanding tested. One of the things that struck me about the Tao Te Ching when I first came across it was the idea of the unspeakableness of the Tao. That made sense to me immediately.
I'm glad you jointed our discussion. You've given me some new directions to look in.
I was in a Tao Te Ching reading group and one of the members was a Tai Chi instructor. He had insights in to the TTC that were very helpful. It is my understanding that trying to follow the path without a meditative practice of some sort leaves something out. I've always thought that the Tao is to be experienced, not understood. His input helped me grasp that better. I studied Tai Chi for several years 20 years ago and I've started practicing again. Classroom work has been disrupted by the pandemic so I've been doing it mostly on my own. I have never felt any strong connection between Tai Chi and the Tao Te Ching. I'd be interested in hearing how you see it.
Taiji is a practice that ultimately allows you to experience "effortless movement", which is an internal flow without willfulness. One is very relaxed and it "happens". It is the flow of the Universe (Dao).
But not to make too much of this. One can arrive at similar experiences by painting, dancing, or playing a musical instrument. The essence is relaxation. It just so happens I first felt it, because of my long Taiji practice. Most teachers will inhibit the discovery, because in their manner of teaching, they implicitly call upon the students to "willfully" do a movement. This is counterproductive. The movement had to be relaxed, natural, and emanating from the Spirit (the Heart). It is the same for all activities of arts and sports.
There is a vast amount of information in my head that I never learned in a formal way. We are constantly experiencing the world and trying to figure out what's going on. For me, that's where most of my understanding of the world comes from. Much of that understanding is non-verbal. Not because I can't put it into words, but because I've never had to.
Is my way of knowing the particle way? You say your son "can’t always trace the source of his information or critically examine his rational process once his mind is made up." I can, but I normally don't because I don't need to.
Quoting Possibility
I think ninety percent of the time, it doesn't matter what decision we make, as long as we make one and are willing to take responsibility for it. There just aren't that many issues that matter all that much. When I was working I had to deal with more and more significant ones. Even then, in most cases it was more important to keep things moving than it was to make the exactly right decision.
I agree with this.
Quoting Possibility
As I've mentioned before, I am not at all clear what takes place "in the gap between the Tao 10,000 things" or how wu wei works. Somehow, through experiencing the Tao, I am lead to act without acting. I use the term "grow out of" for lack of a better term.
I don’t think it’s as cut and dried as that. I imagine that most people have the capacity for both, but they lean towards one or the other. My husband is a mathematics teacher and has very obviously developed both to a high level. But he prefers the particle way, which means that he often needs to be prompted to switch. I can see the particle view, but I also need prompting to switch, and it requires more deliberate concentration on my part, like trying to write left-handed.
There is no gap. It starts as One, then by turning onto itself, it becomes a standing wave (yin/yang). Then with movement (qi), there is a spiraling wave which creates everything.
When you study Taiji, all movements arise from an internal spiral.
Lao Tzu is a bit ambiguous about that. He says different things in different verses. Yin and yang are only mentioned once in the Tao Te Ching, in Verse 42. He doesn't mention qi or chi at all.
The there basic elements of Taiji are Yin, Yang, and Qi. It is the moving wave that one experiences when practicing Taiji. To understand the Dao De Jing, one must experience it. Words are insufficient. 42 explains how the Universe began.
It’s something I’m working on. I work in marketing and PR, so it’s often the little things that matter most. But with COVID regularly turning circumstances on a dime, I also can’t afford to be delayed by indecision.
You say "I strongly reject the idea that the Tao Te Ching and similar theories stand in any privileged position for understanding reality."
I'm not sure what you mean here. I'm suggesting that the metaphysics of the TTC is a correct model of Reality, just as Lao Tsu suggests. It is not 'privileged', just correct. In mysticism it is the standard model, . .
I'm probably misunderstanding you, but If you believe it is not correct then I'll happily argue this point.
PS. The argument in Fundamental Wisdom is the body of the text. The original title was Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way, and the argument is in the verses. . . .
I do believe it is not correct, but I don't think now is the time to get into it. I'm not prepared. Let me do some reading and maybe we can come back to it. If anyone else would like to take this up with FrancisRay, I'm ok with that.
Where in the TTC does Lao Tzu suggest that his is the correct model of Reality?
I agree with you that the TTC is about the experience, not the words. You say there is not gap, but for me there is. I have a sense for the experience of the Tao and obviously I experience the 10,000 things, but it is the step between that I am searching for. How non-being becomes being. How the nameless becomes the named.
There is no non-being. It is Mind that begins to create. Think of drawiing without lifting the pencil. You begin to create shapes in a never ending spiral of waves.
If I experience that person without words or judgement and then act on that without forethought or intention, maybe put my arms around them, that is my understanding of what wu wei is. Acting from my true nature. Does that mean I'm experiencing the Tao at that moment? I'm working on that.
Quoting Possibility
We can both try to keep that in mind as something we see differently. And yes, this is not the place to solve the whole mind/brain thing.
Quoting Possibility
I want to disagree with you, since I don't think there is any logic in the TTC, but I know you and I experience logic differently.
Quoting Possibility
No fair. You've brought in a whole new way of talking about things. I don't know what a "triadic relational model is." I guess I don't feel the need for another way to explain what's going on. For me, there are two ways of experiencing things - there is talking about, describing, kicking, thinking about, understanding, and naming the multiplicity of things and then there is the wordless, nameless experience of the Tao. Can you do them at the same time? Not sure.
Quoting Possibility
I feel the same way.
You and I think about this differently.
If their reaction is to tense up or pull away, then I would say not. It’s the process from experience to action that is potentially inaccurate. We can misunderstand what someone needs from us in their grief if we’re unaware of how our perspective might differ from theirs. I don’t consider wu-wei to be acting from my true nature, especially in interpersonal relations, but aligning with a reliable model of intersubjective truth. Sometimes we don’t have to act or speak - sitting beside them, giving them space, or talking about trivial things don’t directly address their grief and can seem to onlookers that we’re not doing anything to help. But it could be precisely what they need, and we may be the only one in a relational position to effect this. Wu-wei is the difference between appearing to ‘do something’ and an effective use of our relational capacity.
Quoting T Clark
I find it interesting that you always refer to ‘experiencing’ things, even when you’re thinking, describing or understanding. Do you acknowledge that you interact with the world in ways that you’re unable to experience directly? Do you recognise that you construct most of your ‘experience’ of these interactions from a logical and qualitative structure of mind (developed from past experiences, language, cultural reality, knowledge, etc), and only minimally from your temporal, sensory being-in-the-world? I think this refers back to Barrett’s theory.
A ‘triadic relational model’ just refers to the type of logical structure that underlies the TTC. It differs from conventional logic in that it doesn’t reduce to a binary truth value (true-false), but has a triadic base (3). I’m just throwing terms like this in here in the hope that you recognise them from philosophical discourses that might enable us to discuss alternative logical structures. This one comes from commentaries on the work of Charles Sanders Peirce. That you’re unsure of the relation between your ‘two ways of experiencing things’ suggests to me that your model is insufficient, yet you seem unperturbed by the margin for error.
In order to see this you have to study his philosophy. Certain sayings require a specific model or descriptive theory. For instance, the statement 'true words seem paradoxical' are true only in a non-dual philosophy. This is the case for many of his statements. This is the philosophy you will have to refute if you want to show that Lao Tsu's description of reality is untrue. .
If you succeed you will be world-famous within an hour or two, since you'll have destroyed the Perennial philosophy. It isn't going to happen, but I think there's much value in trying to refute it.
I have no interest in refuting Lao Tzu's vision of reality. I've never said it was untrue and I've acknowledged how valuable it is for me. It is my fundamental understanding that metaphysical principles are not true or false, right or wrong. They are useful or not in a particular situation. It will take a significant change in my understanding of things to change that. That's why I'm interested in following up on your ideas. I've bought "Sum of Wisdom." We'll see where it goes from there.
If I experience that person without words or judgement and then act on that without forethought or intention; maybe putting my arms around them, sitting beside them, giving them space, or talking about trivial things; that is my understanding of what wu wei is. Acting from my true nature.
Quoting Possibility
It should be no more unexpected than when Lao Tzu refers to the Tao even when he's thinking, describing, or understanding.
Quoting Possibility
In my understanding, a discussion of cognitive science is not directly relevant to the principles laid out in the TTC. You and I disagree on this.
Quoting Possibility
The fact that I haven't figured it all out yet is not a sign that my "model is insufficient." It is a sign that I'm not a sage. Yet. And yes, I am unperturbed by the fact that I might be wrong. Derek Lin Verse 64:
[i]A tree thick enough to embrace
Grows from the tiny sapling
A tower of nine levels
Starts from the dirt heap
A journey of a thousand miles
Begins beneath the feet[/i]
In respect of its metaphysics you stated "I do believe it is not correct." This raised all my hackles.:)
I don't understand your view and feel it underestimates both Lao Tsu and metaphysics, but I very much respect your open mind. It is a rare thing.
If I was defending him I'd point out that he rejects all positive and extreme metaphysical positions. This rejection is necessary for Philosophical Taoism, Middle Way Buddhism and more generally the Perennial philosophy. If you get this point then all the rest follows (eventually). .
Please note I'm, trying to be useful, not trying to force an opinion on you. I try not to do opinions.
.
I think very highly of both Lao Tzu and metaphysics. You and I just have different ideas of what metaphysics is. Are you familiar with R.G. Collingwood ("Essay on Metaphysics")? His position was that metaphysics is the study of the "absolute presuppositions" that are the foundation of how we understand and talk about the world. He is explicit. Absolute presuppositions are not true or false. They have no truth value. It is meaningless to talk about the truth of a metaphysical statement. That's metaphysics to me.
Quoting FrancisRay
I don't think he needs to be defended from me. He's been doing pretty well for 2,500 years.
Quoting FrancisRay
As I've noted, I'm really happy you showed up here.
You write "I try not to do opinions," while you propound your opinions, Just about everything I write here is opinion. I make no claim to truth.
I am not giving my opinions. I can demionstrate everything I state. However, I wouldn't expect you to believe this without more evidence.or even advise you to do so.
I don't know Coliongwood but it's clear from what you say the he doesn't understand metaphysics or claim to do so. I never understand how so many people who believe metaphysics is incomprehensible can also believe they have understood it.
For Lao Tsu's metaphysics all positive statements about Reality would be unrigorous, and false in this sense rather than false as opposed to true, and to this extent Collingwood would be correct. But he doesn't know why he is correct, so for him metaphysics is incomprehensible. Anyone who believes metaphysics is incomprehensible is clearly not as well-informed as Lao Tsu. He knows why all positive metaphysical statements are incorrect. .
We'll have to leave it there for now.
Darn it. I thought you'd call me out on that one.
Thanks for the chat. .
I have read that some think the TTC has more than one author or that some verses were added later. I don't know enough to argue, but it doesn't seem like "a collection chants, stories, and fables." For me, there is a strong feeling of continuity and unity among all the verses. I see the TTC as all one story told in pieces like a collage. That's one way of getting around the fact that the Tao is unspeakable.
Ellen Marie Chen[/b]
[i]Eliminate (chüeh) learning so as to have no worries,
Yes and no, how far apart are they?
Good and evil, how far apart are they?
What the sages (jen) fear,
I must not not fear.
I am the wilderness (huang) before the dawn (wei yang).
The multitude (chung jen) are busy and active,
Like partaking of the sacrificial feast,
Like ascending the platform in spring;
I alone (tu) am bland (p'o),
As if I have not yet emerged (chao) into form.
Like an infant who has not yet smiled (hai),
Lost, like one who has nowhere to return (wu so kuei).
The multitudes (chung jen) all have too much (yu yü);
I alone (tu) am deficient (i).
My mind (hsin) is that of a fool (yü),
Nebulous.
Worldly people (su jen) are luminous (chao);
I alone (tu) am dark (hun).
Worldly people are clear-sighted (ch'a);
I alone (tu) am dull (men),
I am calm like the sea,
Like the high winds I never stop (chih).
The multitudes (chung jen) all have their use (i);
I alone (tu) am untamable like lowly material.
I alone (tu) am different from others.
For I treasure feeding on the Mother (mu).[/i]
Addiss and Lombardo
[i]Banish learning, no more grief. Between Yes and No How much difference? Between good and evil How much difference??
What others fear I must fear - How pointless!
People are wreathed in smiles as if at a carnival banquet. I alone am passive, giving no sign, Like an infant who has not yet smiled. Forlorn as if I had no home.
Others have enough and more, I alone am left out. I have the mind of a fool, Confused, confused.
Others are bright and intelligent, I alone and dull, dull, Drifting on the ocean, Blown about endlessly.
Others have plans, I alone am wayward and stubborn, I alone am different from others, Like a baby in the womb.[/i]
My thoughts
The theme of Verse 20 is, if you follow the Tao, you will look odd to other people. In the attached PDF file, I’ve included two commentaries. I included Ellen Marie Chen’s because I think she summarizes the verse well, by which I mean her understanding is close to mine. I included Stefan Stenudd’s because he had some interesting things to say about language and history. For example, he says many scholars think the first line doesn’t really belong in this verse.
The attached file also includes several other translations of the verse.
Ellen Marie Chen Verse 20 – stanza by stanza
[i][b]Eliminate (chüeh) learning so as to have no worries,
Yes and no, how far apart are they?
Good and evil, how far apart are they?[/b][/i]
Again, Stenudd says the first line doesn’t belong. Too bad. I like it. As you should know, I’m a fan of the knowledge = bad interpretation. I think this line states it more strongly than some of the others. “Eliminate learning.” “Banish learning.”
The next two lines remind me of several others. This is Chen from Verse 2:
[i]When all under heaven know beauty (mei) as beauty,
There is then ugliness (o);
When all know the good (shan) good,
There is then the not good (pu shan).[/i]
This is Mitchell from Verse 13.
[i]Success is as dangerous as failure.
Hope is as hollow as fear.[/i]
I think of American football – I root for the Patriots. I don’t like the Giants. But they’re the same. They both play the same game. If I don’t care about football, there’s no difference. Same with American Republicans and Democrats. If I’m from Bangladesh, I don’t see any difference. Lao Tzu wants us to recognize that all the value judgements we make are games which we can choose not to play.
[i][b]What the sages (jen) fear,
I must not not fear.
I am the wilderness (huang) before the dawn (wei yang).[/b][/i]
This is confusing. Gia-Fu Feng and Jane English translate this as “Must I fear what others fear? What nonsense!” That reading is consistent with other translations.
[i][b]The multitude (chung jen) are busy and active,
Like partaking of the sacrificial feast,
Like ascending the platform in spring;
I alone (tu) am bland (p'o),
As if I have not yet emerged (chao) into form.
Like an infant who has not yet smiled (hai),
Lost, like one who has nowhere to return (wu so kuei).[/b][/i]
I can’t remember where I saw it, whether it was here in the forum or somewhere else, but recently I read a discussion of why modern people are so afraid of monotony. The discussion said lions lie around most of the day doing nothing and that some hunter gatherer tribes work only four or five hours a day and spend the rest sitting around. Whether or not that’s true, I can picture a pride of Taoist lions sitting in the shade.
In her commentary, Chen has a discussion of the Chinese tradition of not naming a child until they are three months old. The idea is that it is not until she has smiled that she truly becomes a person. Smiling is a sign of the beginning of self-awareness.
[i][b]The multitudes (chung jen) all have too much (yu yü);
I alone (tu) am deficient (i).
My mind (hsin) is that of a fool (yü),
Nebulous.[/b][/i]
“Being There” with Peter Sellars comes to mind. In that comedy, Chance, played by Sellars, is a simple-minded gardener. Everyone hears his bland, pointless words and assumes they are wise. What Lao Tzu is describing is the opposite of that.
[i][b]Worldly people (su jen) are luminous (chao);
I alone (tu) am dark (hun).
Worldly people are clear-sighted (ch'a);
I alone (tu) am dull (men),
I am calm like the sea,
Like the high winds I never stop (chih).[/b][/i]
Why would sophisticated, successful men and women assume that a quiet, calm person is dull?
[i][b]The multitudes (chung jen) all have their use (i);
I alone (tu) am untamable like lowly material.
I alone (tu) am different from others.
For I treasure feeding on the Mother (mu).[/b][/i]
People think I am stubborn and odd.
Again - I see Lao Tzu telling us a story, laying out a path. It doesn't seem like a random hodgepodge or marketing at all.
I think it’s more that you will feel odd in relation to other people.
Quoting T Clark
As you know, our view differs here. I think the commentary that it doesn’t belong says more about the translator’s perspective than the text, their inability to reconcile it with the flow at this point. It warrants a closer look.
I’ve already argued that the first character in this verse - jué - doesn’t really mean ‘eliminate’, but rather ‘absolute’, or to ‘cut-off’ at a point of excess. I think it’s more about recognising our limitations with regards to knowledge or learning, embracing uncertainty to eliminate worry, fear, concern, sorrow, care, anxiety, etc. The lines that follow help to demonstrate this, but I think the translation needs work.
The first line says that we cannot accurately quantify the relation between positive and negative; the second that we cannot qualify the relation between good and evil. It’s like asking ‘how long is a piece of string?’ This uncertainty is what we fear. Such desolation, such scarcity of information has no centre, no end, nothing to beg for.
The rest of the verse describes the difference between the sage who faces this uncertainty, and everyone else who appear to have full and busy lives, so in control and certain of their usefulness, their dominant and joyful ‘springtime’ stance, their vision of who they are and where they’re going.
Instead of the Cartesian method of casting aside all doubt and starting from only what we can be ‘certain’ of, the Taoist starts from the limitations of knowledge, recognising that we can be certain of nothing - that all knowledge is quantitatively and/or qualitatively relative (to the flow of chi). This is not to say that we cannot know anything - only that we cannot claim beyond ourselves to know anything with certainty, because any attempt to name, state or describe this knowledge beyond our own experience is relative to the flow of chi. And chi flows according to affect: attention and effort. It is always variable.
In my view, Lao Tzu gets around this only by extricating chi from the TTC - recognising that when it is read, when we interact with the language, we inevitably bring our own. So he takes great care not to mess with that flow: not to block or ignore, not to isolate or exclude. No matter what we think we know about the world, if we can parse reality into quality, quantity (logic) and chi, then we can discover the Way. But we can’t bottle it.
The file I attached to my original post has Stefan Stenudd's full commentary, which discusses this in more detail.
Quoting Possibility
As you note, you and I disagree on this. The statement in the first line seems stronger to me than similar lines in other verses. More definitive. As mystical philosopher Tommy has noted, "You ain't gonna follow me any of those ways, although you think you must."
Quoting Possibility
The second and third lines of the first stanza seem to me to be pointing out that our value judgements are conditional and somewhat arbitrary. The important distinction isn't between good and bad, but between making judgements and not making judgements.
Quoting Possibility
As I noted in my comments, I think the point of the verse is that people who follow the Tao look odd, disreputable, stupid, or crazy to many other people because they don't care about the goals most people do - acclaim, wealth, status, attention.
Quoting Possibility
I don't see it this way at all. The TTC is not about knowledge, it's about the rejection of knowledge. Lao Tzu could not be more explicit about it. He's a plain-spoken guy. He says what he means.
Quoting Possibility
I don't see where this comes from. Lao Tzu doesn't mention "chi," or any other term I recognize as similar, at all.
Have you been following the discussion on Buddhist epistemology? Also there's a discussion about why people turned away from Buddhism in the Lounge. I'm curious about your thoughts. I plan to follow up with @FrancisRay on some of the comments he made on the logic of Taoism and Buddhism previously in this thread.
(Thanks for this thread, everyone. :hearts: )
I like this verse. It feels really different from the others we’ve discussed. It plays around with some of the contradictions that have been seen elsewhere. Is the Tao a thing? Does it have a form? That’s what struck me as I first read it. This verse also feels like a summary of what we read in other verses. Like Lao Tzu is standing back and showing us the big picture.
I’ve included excerpts from the commentaries from Ellen Marie Chen and Stefan Stenudd that I thought were helpful at the end of this post.
Ellen Marie Chen
[i]The features (yung) of the vast (k'ung) Te,
Follows entirely (wei) from Tao.
Tao as a thing,
Is entirely illusive (huang) and evasive (hu).
Evasive and illusive,
In it there is image (hsiang).
Illusive and evasive,
In it there is thinghood (wu).
Dark and dim,
In it there is life seed (ching).
Its life seed being very genuine (chen),
In it there is growth power (hsin).
As it is today, so it was in the days of old (ku),
Its name goes not away (ch'ü),
So that we may survey (yüeh) the origins of the many (chung fu).
How do I know that the origins of the many are such?
Because of this.[/i]
Gia-Fu Feng and Jane English
[i]The greatest Virtue is to follow Tao and Tao alone.
The Tao is elusive and intangible.
Oh, it is intangible and elusive, and yet within is image.
Oh, it is elusive and intangible, and yet within is form.
Oh, it is dim and dark, and yet within is essence.
This essence is very real, and therein lies faith.
From the very beginning until now its name has never been forgotten.
Thus I perceive the creation.
How do I know the ways of creation?
Because of this.[/i]
[b]Line by line discussion
Ellen Marie Chen[/b]
[b][i]The features (yung) of the vast (k'ung) Te,
Follows entirely (wei) from Tao.[/i][/b]
This is the first time the term “te” is used in the TTC, except in the title. In the title, Tao get’s top billing, but Te is still on the marquee. According to some scholars, Verses 1 through 37 are the book of the Tao and Verses 38 through 81 are the book of Te.
“Te” means “virtue.” No, it doesn’t. Yes, it does. It is sometimes translated as “power.” This is from Chen’s Verse 38:
[i]Therefore when Tao is lost (shih), then there is te.
When te is lost, then there is jen (humanity).
When jen is lost, then there is i (righteousness).
When i is lost, then there is li (propriety).
As to li, it is the thin edge of loyalty and faithfullness,
And the beginning of disorder;[/i]
So, on this ladder, te comes after the Tao but before the principles of conventional behavior. It is clearly a good thing. Since the Tao is inconceivable, untouchable, maybe it’s the closest we can get. Maybe it’s the shadow of the Tao, it’s projection on our souls. As the couplet says, everything that is Te comes from the Tao.
[b][i]Tao as a thing,
Is entirely illusive (huang) and evasive (hu).
Evasive and illusive,
In it there is image (hsiang).
Illusive and evasive,
In it there is thinghood (wu).[/i][/b]
I have always assumed that the Tao is not a thing. It’s sometimes called “non-being.” This from Chen’s Verse 40:
[i]Ten thousand things under heaven are born of being (yu).
Being is born of non-being (wu).[/i]
Everything I think and feel about the Tao says it doesn’t exist, is not a thing, but the TTC (Chen Verse 25) also says:
[i]There was something nebulous existing (yu wu hun ch'eng),
Born before heaven and earth.[/i]
And also (Chen Verse 4):
[i]Tao is a whirling emptiness (ch'ung)…
…It seems perhaps to exist (ts'un).
[b]Dark and dim,
In it there is life seed (ching).
Its life seed being very genuine (chen),
In it there is growth power (hsin).[/i][/b]
This makes me think of the Tao by itself for 10.5 billion years following the big bang. Unnamed stars, galaxies, dark matter whirling outward from the center. Then life is created and for 3.5 billion years evolves until humans are born, language is invented, and things can finally be named. Then the 10,000 things burst from the seed and spread across the universe faster than the speed of light. Instantaneously.
[i][b]As it is today, so it was in the days of old (ku),
Its name goes not away (ch'ü),
So that we may survey (yüeh) the origins of the many (chung fu).
How do I know that the origins of the many are such?
Because of this.[/b][/i]
So people thousands of years ago learned about the Tao and have passed the word down so we will know. I like the last line especially. How do I know these things? I see Lao Tzu turning with his arms wide saying “See, all this. This is how we know.”
?
Ellen Marie Chen General Comment:
For effective contrast, this chapter is best read together with chapter 14. Both chapters call Tao the illusive and evasive (hu-huang), i.e., the primal Chaos or Hun-tun described in chapter 25. In chapter 14 Tao recedes and becomes the nothing; here the same illusive and evasive Tao moves forward to become the realm of beings. There Tao is nameless; here Tao is the name that never goes away. There Tao is the formless form, the image of nothing; here Tao contains the seeds and images of all beings that are to be. The dominant character of Tao in chapter 14 is wu, nothing; in this chapter it is yu, being or having. The conclusion of chapter 14 traces Tao to the beginning of old; this chapter arrives at the realm of the many in the now.
Chen translation of Verse 14 for reference:
[i]What is looked at but not (pu) seen,
Is named the extremely dim (yi).
What is listened to but not heard,
Is named the extremely faint (hsi).
What is grabbed but not caught,
Is named the extremely small (wei).
These three cannot be comprehended,
Thus they blend into one.
As to the one, its coming up is not light,
Its going down is not darkness.
Unceasing, unnameable,
Again it reverts to nothing.
Therefore it is called the formless form,
The image (hsiang) of nothing.
Therefore it is said to be illusive and evasive (hu-huang).
Come toward it one does not see its head,
Follow behind it one does not see its rear.
Holding on to the Tao of old (ku chih tao),
So as to steer in the world of now (chin chih yu).
To be able to know the beginning of old,
It is to know the thread of Tao.[/i]
Stefan Stenudd Commentary Excerpts:
Tao, the Way, is primordial. Not only was it present at the very birth of the world, but it was the actual origin out of which the world emerged. Its own origin, if there is one, is the most distant of all.
So, Tao must be obscure, evasive, and vague. Anything by which to describe Tao is of later date and lesser significance, so Tao remains forever impenetrable. Its nature may be grasped intuitively, but not explained.
Lao Tzu speaks repeatedly about the center of Tao, as if it would differ from its periphery or anything in between. But Tao is the very law of nature, so it contains no differences or discrepancies. Otherwise there would be anomalies and exceptions in the way the universe works.
It would collapse, as would Tao. What Lao Tzu refers to is the difference between the outside view, when Tao is observed by those who don’t comprehend it, and what its true nature really is.
In that way, Tao has form because of all the forms being born out of it, and it has substance through all the matter that came out of it, filling the world. It also has essence, which is its creative force, its active presence. Without that essence, no world would have emerged. Tao would only have been an eternal possibility, resting in its own perfection.
The essence of Tao is similar to the expressed will of the Bible’s God, uttering: “Let there be...” Tao may have no similarly traceable intention, but the result is the same. The universe was born, because that event was in the nature of Tao.
I had trouble with this verse. The different translations each seem to take a different angle, some in conflict with each other. They also seem to be in conflict with some earlier verses. I take the general theme to be one we have seen a lot. Act from the heart, with sincerity, and not for gain or recognition. Wu wei, although it isn’t called out as that. Then the verse goes on with some related things that I find a bit muddled.
Derek Lin
[i]Yield and remain whole
Bend and remain straight
Be low and become filled
Be worn out and become renewed
Have little and receive
Have much and be confused
Therefore the sage holds to the one as an example for the world
Without flaunting oneself - and so is seen clearly
Without presuming oneself - and so is distinguished
Without praising oneself - and so has merit
Without boasting about oneself - and so is lasting
Because he does not contend, the world cannot contend with him
What the ancients called "the one who yields and remains whole"
Were they speaking empty words?
Sincerity becoming whole, and returning to oneself[/i]
Gia-Fu Feng and Jane English
[i]Yield and overcome;
Bend and be straight;
Empty and be full;
Wear out and be new;
Have little and gain;
Have much and be confused.
Therefore the wise embrace the one
And set an example to all.
Not putting on a display,
They shine forth.
Not justifying themselves,
They are distinguished.
Not boasting,
They receive recognition.
Not bragging,
They never falter.
They do not quarrel,
So no one quarrels with them.
Therefore the ancients say, "Yield and overcome."
Is that an empty saying?
Be really whole,
And all things will come to you.[/i]
[b]Discussion of Derek Lin’s translation
[i]Yield and remain whole
Bend and remain straight[/b][/i]
At first look, these two lines seem straightforward - be flexible. Don’t force actions or forcibly resist events. Non-action. Some other translations have different emphasis. Gia-Fu Feng and Jane English say:
[i]Yield and overcome;
Bend and be straight;[/i]
Addis and Lombardo say:
[i]Crippled become whole,
Crooked becomes straight,[/i]
These two translations seem to take a different view. Lin says “be flexible and remain strong.” The other translations seem to be saying “be flexible and achieve your goals.” The latter readings seem more consistent with the remaining lines in the stanza from Lin:
[b][i]Be low and become filled
Be worn out and become renewed
Have little and receive
Have much and be confused[/i][/b]
This has a prosperity gospel feel to it. Follow the Tao and you will be given what you want and need. This theme seems to be carried forward in the next stanza. Note that the last line of this stanza does not follow the parallel structure of the previous five. They say “do this and this good thing will happen.” The last line says “do this and this bad thing will happen.”
All in all, I like Stephen Mitchell’s take on this stanza best:
[i]If you want to become whole,
let yourself be partial.
If you want to become straight,
let yourself be crooked.
If you want to become full,
let yourself be empty.
If you want to be reborn,
let yourself die.
If you want to be given everything,
give everything up.[/i]
I didn’t use his translation as the template here, because his version seems to have taken a lot of liberties with the text, as often happens with Mitchell.
[b][i]Therefore the sage holds to the one as an example for the world
Without flaunting oneself - and so is seen clearly
Without presuming oneself - and so is distinguished
Without praising oneself - and so has merit
Without boasting about oneself - and so is lasting
Because he does not contend, the world cannot contend with him[/i][[/b]
Again, the meaning here seems muddled. It again seems to say “do this, and accomplish your goals.” Flaunting, presuming, praising or boasting about oneself are all to be avoided. At the same time, being an example to the world, being seen clearly, being distinguished, having merit, and lasting are things we are not supposed to care about, but Lao Tzu is offering them to us as a reward for following the Tao. As if you can have anything you want, you just have to stop wanting it. Maybe he is playing with this irony intentionally.
The last line of this stanza seems to refer back to the first two lines – don’t resist, bend, be flexible. Relax, release, surrender. Not to achieve anything or gain any advantage. With no intention. No action. Wait for the mud to settle.
[b][i]What the ancients called "the one who yields and remains whole"
Were they speaking empty words?
Sincerity becoming whole, and returning to oneself[/i][/b]
This stanza refers back to the previous lines and asks “Is all this true?” Then what I guess is supposed to be a summary line – “Sincerity becoming whole and returning to oneself.” The Feng and English version makes more sense to me and seems more consistent with the verse as a whole.
[i]Be really whole,
And all things will come to you.[/i]
Be really whole – follow the Tao, be your true self. Again “all things will come to you” seems ambiguous and contradictory.
Excerpts from Ellen Marie Chen commentary
[i]This chapter arrives at an ethic of self-preservation and self-fulfillment by the central teaching of non-contention (pu cheng). The way to fully develop one’s potential is by avoiding the harmful influences that can shorten life, not, therefore, through struggle or warfare, but through humility and yielding. The Ho-shang Kung commentary considers the entire chapter the ethics of survival.
The first line “Bent, thus preserved whole” describes how a plant weathers a storm. The unbending will be mowed down but the bent will survive the destructive forces (ch. 76). This must have been the common wisdom of the time. The I-ching, Hsi-tz’u, II, chapter 5, says: “The measuring worm draws itself together for the sake of .expanding forward [hsin, see ch. 21]. Dragons and snakes hibernate for the sake of preserving their lives” (R. Wilhelm, 1967: 338). Similarly “the hollow,” like the valley (ch. 39), will be filled, the worn-out turns and becomes new (ch. 15), those with little shall receive more, but those who have much shall have their possessions taken away from them (chs. 36, 44, 77).
This logic of reversion is even more eloquently expressed in the Sermon on the Mount:
Blessed are ye poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.
Blessed are ye that hunger now, for you shall be filled.
Blessed are ye that weep now, for you shall laugh. . . (Luke 6: 20-26)
While both texts can be construed today as preaching passive acceptance of a miserable fate with the promise of a better future—hence Marx’s indictment against religion as the opium of the people—they differ as to the manner of fulfillment. The Gospel promises readjustment of justice in the next world, implying that affairs in this world are not amenable to change for the better. The Tao Te Ching, as the next stanza makes clear, is not meant to console but to teach the art of surviving intact and accomplishing what one sets out to do in this world without resorting to conflict or warfare. They are practical instructions on how to succeed in life.[/i]
Aw, geez Frank. Now I have to get off my ass and continue this discussion.
Yea but the sage acts by doing nothing.
Good point! Then again, no one ever accused me of being a sage.
Well ok then.
Isn't that like saying, no one ever arrested me for being good?
You don't accuse sages just as you don't arrest good people!
You may have a point though. :chin: Hmmmm
Tao is just the old word for consciousness.
Once you realize that consciousness is different from the mind, and that consciousness is the substrate of all evidence/experience/reality.
Not necessarily... it is a big debate what “Tao” means. It depends a lot which book you have in your hands. My book version speaks about Tao as the “Principle”. But for other authors, like Derek Lin, he doesn’t even translate it.
It is just Tao, like speaking about God, one, Demiurge, etc...
I'm not basing my statement on any book, but reality.
Either Tao is just the old world for consciousness or the book is nothing but nonsense.
Yes... but we should to figure out what the book says because it is translated from Ancient Chinese...
You can’t have an opinion of Tao if you do not read what Lao Tse wrote and then, how we translate him. This is why Tao is complex.
Saying Tao is “awareness” is just your opinion.
Truth is the same across all nations and races and languages. Once you know the truth you do not need to translate anything. It's not found in books.
No... clearly not. What a simple statement and it is full of fallacies.
Truth can’t be the same across the countries. It is impossible because it is a concept very interpretable. What is truth for you, it can be false for me...
You need books... it is very important the act of read and develop your knowledge. You can’t have experiences for the act of living only.
As you can see from my comments in this thread, that's not how I see it.
There is only one objective reality. Math is the same for everyone. Feelings are different.
That is how you see it. Unfortunately your thinking and your seeing is not in alignment.
But we are not debating about maths, we are speaking about Taoism which is a philosophical belief so free and open to interpretation.
No it's not. You only think it is because you don't know what its talking about. Because you have not experienced it, or recognized your experience of it.
Taoism is not like mathematical formula... it is a way of thinking, living or seeing the life. You cannot make “solid statements” in something so general as the verses of Lao Tse.
I guess it is not the same debating about this:
It is the first verse of Tao. You can interpret it as you want.
But if we debate about this: ?2. It is just objective.
He is describing consciousness. And he is solving the hard problem of consciousness that plagues modern neuroscience (which used to be called the mind body problem). Although mind and consciousness are two different things.
Ok. I respect it. This is the way you interpret it. For me, for example, it is speaking about omnipresence.
Consciousness is omnipresent.
Problem is you just don't realize the true nature of consciousness. So then you don't realize he is talking about it.
Consciousness is not in the brain, the brain is in consciousness.
Look and see for yourself. Stop believing and start looking.
Taoism is about believing... how you defend the virtue of awareness is another power about belief.
You are presenting me a lot of arguments which, according to you, Tao is about awareness. Then you believe on what are you thinking.
I do not understand why you want separate the act of think from the act of “praxis”
It's the opposite of that.
He is pointing to something beyond the mind, and instead of looking and seeing you are getting lost in thought about the pointers.
"The finger pointing at the moon is not the moon."
How can Tao wrote something as: (verse XIX) and not “believe” in it... this could be even contradictory.
The opposite of belief is skepticism, and I guess Tao is far away from this philosophical view...
The opposite of belief is experience. and a description of something is not a belief about it.
No. Both concepts are not necessarily being opposites. They can be even explained together or as David Hume, explained, “it is more connected with custom”
Quoting hope
Lao Tse does not describe anything in Tao. He just expresses how he sees nature, humans, communities, peace, etc... in a metaphorical technique through the verses.
Describing is the main thing he does in the Tao. He describes the Tao, which is consciousness.
Good interpretation of how you see the Tao.
But check out how many variations could be:
https://www.centertao.org/essays/understanding-the-tao-te-ching/
http://fs.unm.edu/NeutrosophicTaoTeChing.pdf
https://www.jstor.org/stable/20006197
Maybe the Tao Te Ching is a recipe for meat pie. lol
Or a good glass of sake :lol:
Or maybe its nothing but a pointer to the true nature of consciousness.
Quoting hope
It seems to me that you want to have your cake of the inexplicable and eat it too.
If the true Tao cannot be expressed, your ostensive gesture toward it is another example.
As the great scholar Clint Eastwood once put it, a man needs to know his limitations.
Consciousness cannot be expressed.
But what if consciousness has no limitations?
On the contrary, it is expressed everywhere, as you suggested earlier.
Then it becomes something anybody can say anything about. The Tao Te Ching doesn't talk that way.
It's expressed incorrectly most of the time.
Probably so. Then you will have to demonstrate the difference if you want to bring in something new. And if that is not your intention, why bother?
I named this thread "My favorite verses in the Tao Te Ching." It's purpose is to discuss the meaning of specific verses in relation to the whole document. I still have some thoughts of starting it up again. It's pointless for you to spout off your superficial opinion of what Lao Tzu was saying without any reference to the text itself or to the context of the whole document. It's self-indulgent.
Maybe that's because I taught Lao Tzu everything he knows and everything he based his book on.
So, what's LT really like? He seems pretty cool.
You wouldn't like him. You're mind would find him too boring and silly.
You would laugh at him.
and without that laugh, it would not be the Tao.
You wish to speak with a certain authority but bring nothing new to the table. Informing other people how stupid they are is a rhetorical trick developed long ago.
My interest level is dropping.
There is a difference between stupidity and ignorance.
and a difference between knowledge and wisdom
and a difference between wisdom and enlightenment
Then talk about that.
Your conclusions are less interesting than your process.
Because my conclusions are too far ahead.
So, you want something you personally worked out for yourself to persuade other people on the premise that you have a special relationship to the truth?
This has been tried before. Perhaps you should look into that.
haters gonna hate
Come on, Hope, you told us you write books. What are they called, and where can we can get them?
I am not a hater. Maybe you are not either. Proof is in the pudding.
Then I would have to reveal my real name, which is against the rules and a violation of my privacy.
duh
Attack the argument, not the person making it.
I thought I was observing that principle.
So, then what's the point telling us that you write books???
I'm not criticizing you. I actually agree with some of the things you're saying.
What have you got to hide or fear if what you're saying is true?
Stop talking about me, and stop talking about yourself. and start talking about the ideas being presented. Get it?
Like I already said: my true identity in the real world.
On here I am Neo, in the real world I am Mr. Anderson.
I get it. But there you are, doing other stuff.
If you want to talk about people then host a talk show like Oprah lol
I fully respect everyone's privacy, that's not an issue for me.
However, you write books but you don't want people to know that you write books.
Then why are you telling people that you write books?
It doesn't sound like you read much of thread you commented upon.
But I know what was said by reading it while you stand outside knowing nothing.
But I know what was said by reading it while you stand outside knowing nothing.
Use it for yourself.
I always enjoyed this discussion. Putting my thoughts about the Tao Te Ching into words has helped me gain an understanding about what it means to me. The thread sort of ran out of steam along the way, so it has been dormant for almost a year. I’ve been thinking about starting it up again, for at least a verse or two. I’m not sure how much I’ll carry it on.
I find Verse 23 a bit perplexing. As I see it, it has three subjects:
I’m not sure how these three subjects are related. The translations I looked at all address the first subject in similar ways, but the second and third are handled differently in different translations.
The first translation of Verse 23 in this post is one I found fairly recently, so I haven’t used it in past posts. It seems like a useful translation. Best of all, for me, is that it includes specific verses from the Chuang Tzu that are relevant to some of the Tao Te Ching verses. Here’s a link to a downloadable PDF version:
https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.189060/page/n3/mode/2up
Lin Yutang
[i]Nature says few words:
Hence it is that a squall lasts not a whole morning.
A rainstorm continues not a whole day.
Where do they come from?
From Nature.
Even Nature does not last long (in its utterances),
How much less should human beings?
Therefore it is that:
He who follows the Tao is identified with the Tao.
He who follows Character (Teh) is identified with
Character.
He who abandons (Tao) is identified with abandonment
(of Tao).
He who is identified with Tao—
Tao is also glad to welcome him.
He who is identified with Character—
Character is also glad to welcome him.
He who is identified with abandonment—
Abandonment is also glad to welcome him.
He who has not enough faith
Will not be able to command faith from others.[/i]
Addiss and Lombardo
[i]Spare words; nature's way.
Violent winds do not blow all morning.
Sudden rain cannot pour all day.
What causes these things?
Heaven and Earth.
If Heaven and Earth do not blow and pour for long,
How much less should humans?
Therefore in following Tao:
Those on the way become the way,
Those who gain become the gain,
Those who lose become the loss.
All within the Tao:
The wayfarer, welcome upon the way,
Those who gain, welcome within gain,
Those who lose, welcome within loss.
Without trust in this, There is no trust at all.[/i]
Stephen Mitchell
[i]Express yourself completely,
then keep quiet.
Be like the forces of nature:
when it blows, there is only wind;
when it rains, there is only rain;
when the clouds pass, the sun shines through.
If you open yourself to the Tao,
you are at one with the Tao
and you can embody it completely.
If you open yourself to insight,
you are at one with insight
and you can use it completely.
If you open yourself to loss,
you are at one with loss
and you can accept it completely.
Open yourself to the Tao,
then trust your natural responses;
and everything will fall into place.[/i]
[b]Stanza by stanza discussion:
First stanza:[/b]
As I noted, the first stanza is generally handled the same by all of the translators. Wind and rain are nature’s speech. There is power in the way “heaven and earth” express themselves. Express yourself briefly, powerfully, then be quiet. This is a common theme in the TTC - act spontaneously, from the heart, without regard for success, failure, acclaim, or blame. “Wu wei,” act without acting. Then let it go.
Second stanza:
This one confuses me and different translators give it somewhat different interpretations. First off, it seems as if the contents of this stanza are considered direct results of what is stated in the first. I don’t see that connection. The main confusion I have is with the idea of loss. Addiss and Lombardo say:
[i]All within the Tao:
The wayfarer, welcome upon the way,
Those who gain, welcome within gain,
Those who lose, welcome within loss.[/i]
This makes is seem as if it’s a good thing to lose. On the other hand, Lin Yutang writes:
[i]He who follows the Tao is identified with the Tao.
He who follows Character (Te) is identified with
Character.
He who abandons (Tao) is identified with abandonment
(of Tao).[/i]
This makes it seem like it is a bad thing. Most translations hint at least that loss, or at least identification with loss, is a good, or at least neutral, thing. I like the way Stephen Mitchell puts it:
[i]If you open yourself to loss,
you are at one with loss
and you can accept it completely.[/i]
This makes sense to me and is consistent with my experience. Similarly, Gia-Fu Feng and Jane English write:
[i]When you are at one with loss,
The loss is experienced willingly.[/i]
Third stanza:
This seems pretty straightforward, although, as I noted, I’m not sure of it’s connection with the previous two stanzas. Lin Yutang writes:
[i]He who has not enough faith
Will not be able to command faith from others.[/i]
Is this a reference back to the need for a ruler to trust the people? Similarly, Ellen Marie Chen writes:
[i]When you don't trust (hsin) (the people) enough,
Then they are untrustworthy (pu hsin).[/i]
Taking a different tack, Mitchell writes:
[i]Open yourself to the Tao,
then trust your natural responses;
and everything will fall into place.[/i]
This interpretation seems to refer back to the first stanza.
Commentaries from Lin Yutang and Ellen Marie Chen are included in the hidden section.
[hide="Reveal"][b]Commentaries on Verse 23
Lin Yutang’s selected verse from the Chuang Tzu.[/b]
23,1, DESCRIPTION OF A STORM. MUSIC OF THE EARTH
[i]'The breath of the universe,” continued Tsech'i, "is called wind. At times, it is inactive. But when active, all devices resound to its blast Have you never listened to Its deafening roar"?
*'Caves and dells of hill and forest, hollows in huge trees of many a span in girth—some are like nostrils and some like mouths, and others like ears, beam-sockets. goblets, mortars, or like pools and puddles. And the wind goes rushing through them, like swirling torrents or singing arrows, bellowing, sousing, trilling wailing, roaring, purling, whistling m front and echoing behind, now soft with the cool blow, now shrill with the whirlwind, until the tempest is past and silence reigns supreme. Have you never witnessed how the trees and objects shake and quake, and twist and twirl?'' (1:4)[/i]
[b]Ellen Marie Chen’s commentary:
First stanza:[/b]
Squalls and rainstorms as works or speech of heaven and earth do not last; once they are uttered, they are gone. Human rulers would do well to imitate heaven and earth. Having accomplished their deeds, they should retire without claiming merit, just as heaven and earth let go their works.
Second stanza:
Here we are given three ontological states. Tao is the creative ground of all beings. Te as the natural world includes heaven, earth, and all creatures. Shih stands for the conscious works of human beings in alienation from the works of nature. While te literally means to receive (ch. 39), shih means to lose. Humans, through the development of value consciousness, step outside the safe limits of nature (ch. 24), thus becoming cut off from the life of the round (ch. 38).
Third stanza:
The last two lines, returning to the theme in the opening line, already appear in chapter 17.2 with the same message. Nature speaks little. One who follows heaven and earth, trusting his people, also speaks little. Moral consciousness as shih, born from loss of the wholesomeness of nature, is self-validating: The ruler who belongs to te trusts his people and they thereby prove to be trustworthy; the ruler who belongs to shih distrusts his people and they thereby prove to be untrustworthy.
[/hide]
Sounds like the eternal but still timeless absolute reality of the quantum vacuum, on whose higher dimensional structure time and space emerge in a big inflation.
This thread brings me a lot of nostalgia. Thanks for sharing all these comments on verse n? 23. Yeah I remember that we had many debates about this one back in the day.
I'm, well, speechless! :chin:
One of my favorite verses is Verse 4. This is from Ellen Marie Chen's translation:
[i]Tao is a whirling emptiness (ch'ung),
Yet (erh) in use (yung) is inexhaustible (ying).
Fathomless (yuan),
It seems to be the ancestor (tsung) of ten thousand beings.
It blunts the sharp,
Unties the entangled,
Harmonizes the bright,
Mixes the dust.
Dark (chan),
It seems perhaps to exist (ts'un).
I do not know whose child it is,
It is an image (hsiang) of what precedes God (Ti).[/i]
If the Tao precedes God, it also precedes the quantum vacuum and any higher dimensional structure.
Any thoughts will be welcome. They help me understand better and give me incentive to keep going.
Sounds like a poetic description of the quantum vacuum structure preceding the big bang, and which is still around us! Damned,T Clark! A revelation!
Agreed, it is a poetic description, but then "vacuum" and "big bang" are used metaphorically. I'm not clear on what the revelation you're so excited about is. If you mean that the Tao is the quantum vacuum, that's not how I see it.
Quoting T Clark
That's the quantum vacuum! Whirling emptiness: whirling virtual particles. The entangled particles disentangled during inflation. The sharpness blunted: uncertainty relations. Must I continue?
The whole universe coming from it! Inexhaustable.
Again, that's not how I see it. The quantum vacuum, virtual particles, that's physics. The Tao is metaphysics. It's one useful way of seeing how things are, not the only way.
Yes. I just noticed the striking similarities. I don't think there is any real reference to the physical world.
Now it truly gets scary...
The ten thousand things, or ten thousand beings, refers to the multiplicity of the world. All the individual things that exist once we cut the Tao into pieces.
Ah, alright. I again saw the connection with the vacuum and the bang coming out of it. The "ancestor" of all. The resemblance getting scary!
The quantum and the Tao, so often exploited...
Everything I write about this is how I see it, not the way it is. There are hundreds of translations and interpretations of the Tao Te Ching out there. I guess you could say this thread is just one more. Metaphorically, I can see how the Tao and the quantum vacuum are the same. They are both the absolute ground of being. But then, the Tao is many other things also. There are moral, social, and psychological dimensions that you don't find in physics.
Everyone who has ever read the TTC has seen it differently.
I take mine from it then, as it seems to advocate. I love these lines! Until the last three lines I see it like the the most beautiful way I have seen the quantum vacuum described! All propagators, momenta, and energies, hidden variables, etc. shrink into insignificance wrt to it! For me, it's a kind of revelation. :up:
How long ago written? By who?
How did he know the quantum vacuum?
Yes! I think though that if you know the reason for that ground, which only can be given in a theist context, the ground gets an extra dimension, and all the reasons we invent, like maybe the morals, an extra depth.
I'll be following along. It may be some time before I have something to say. :smile:
Written about 2,500 years ago by Lao Tzu in China.
How did he know about the quantum vacuum already back then?
As you can see from the language in Verse 4, the Tao came before any God. Before anything was named. Before the quantum vacuum.
If you're interested in reading more, here is a link to a website that has many different translations of the TTC.
https://terebess.hu/english/tao/_index.html
You can read the whole document in about an hour. As I indicated, the text you liked is from Ellen Marie Chen's translation.
He didn't.
It looks as if though. Maybe the two are the same in disguise.
So it's the ground for gods even? What the fuck? And from where did that ground came? What was the reason for that ground? I think he is fucking with the gods here. The human gods were always kind of funny! The other gods laugh about him. Humans...
Tanx for the link, but anyone messing with eternal gods... Dunno. Could be interesting though.
I think this chapter refers to recognising and trusting our temporary nature within Tao. The previous chapter described how the sage manifests effect without intending or desiring to BE the effective agent.
A violent wind or a sudden downpour are temporary events within an ongoing directional flow of energy, or ch’i - Feng Shui meaning ‘wind and water’. If we consider our life event in a similar way, then we have three basic options: we can focus on attracting energy, on losing it, or we can position our being according to the Way, which neither gains nor loses but rather effects an unobstructed flow of energy.
:snicker:
[quote=King Lear]As flies to wanton boys are we to the gods;
They kill us for their sport.[/quote]
Let's analyze rationally and offer rational critique.
Nature says a lot of words, whispers constantly, screams at times. On just have to listen with a pure mind, unclothed by culture. As people are part of nature, so is culture, and nature even speaks and spells louder then. Speaking to us in the language we like to hear, in the language she wants, or sometimes screaming us something loudly in the ears without us actually hearing because we don't listen or maybe don't listen because we are deafened by culture.
Quoting Hillary
The mind's natural habitat is the quantum world. Lao Tzu was onto something i.e. his mind did know about whatever the hell quantum vacuum is. Have you seen gravity (the dominant force at large scales) ever give a consciousness preferential treatment? On the other hand, wave function collapse is effected via consciousness. :snicker:
I think that's right. I think that "temporary nature" you're talking about is hard to attain. Or at least it's easy to forget. I went back and reread Verse 22 since you brought it up. For me, it was much clearer in what it was saying than this one.
Quoting Possibility
Chi, c'hi, qi, energy; is like yin and yang - People say that it is central to understanding the Tao, but it rarely or never is mentioned in the Tao Te Ching. I have some sense of what it means based on my experience with tai chi. I think it points to the fact that Taoist practice includes meditation. That's something I don't generally take into account.
As I see it, nature may scream sometimes, but briefly, then it stops. We should be like that. None of this whispering. Just be quiet. Say what needs to be said, then shut up. Do what needs to be done, then stop, leave it behind, and go on to whatever's next.
My approach to the TTC tends to be intellectual, rational, but that's me, not Lao Tzu. I don't see it as a fundamentally rational document. It's not irrational either. For me, it's about experiencing the world without words or concepts, if that's possible at all. Can't get much more non-rational than that.
[irony] Yes, and Nostradamus predicted the Patriots will win the Superbowl this season.[/irony]
Still, the soft whispering of Nature can be compared with the whirling emptiness of the quantum vacuum. Sift words, not yet fully fledged, ready to be firmly spoken when interaction is there, or measurement, or particles are pulled out of their virtual vacuum state into reality. Sometime with a primordial birth cry, which is a kind of dramatic particle physics... :fire: (whatever the fire means, but seems appropriate)
AS is on to something! Lemme tellya!
You take something different from this than I do, which is fine.
Quoting Hillary
Nostradamus wrote
Patriots by 10, nuff said
Put your bets down now
:snicker:
The lack of reference to ch’i in the TTC I think is deliberate - it is human interaction that contributes ch’i to language, bringing life-energy, affect, value and desire to the text. What makes the original text universal is that it has no ch’i - the author has presented a logical arrangement of qualitative ideas.
English doesn’t lend itself very well to this non-conceptual structure. Most English translations of the TTC have something of the translator’s own life experience and value structures in them, as well as their conceptualisation of Chinese history and culture - none of which can be found in the original text. It makes it difficult to get a clear sense of the text by comparing only one or two English translations.
From what I understand, Tai Chi deals with the actual flow of ch’i, and I think that meditation in Taoist practice is like scientific experimentation: create a controlled environment in which to observe the flow of ch’i through a logically arranged qualitative structure. But the TTC looks more at the potential of ch’i, particularly the notion of wu-wei, challenging the assumption that ch’i be attributed as a potential property to people in terms of power, control, agency, desire, etc. From Verse 17, the most effective ruler appears to achieve nothing at all themselves.
FWIW, I think there is some sense in the parallels to be drawn between the TTC and quantum physics. But I also think we need to be careful not to jump to conclusions about ‘knowledge’ Lao Tzu may have had (verses 18-20).
We've had this discussion before. I'm more confident than you are that we can hear what Lao Tzu is trying to say even 2,500 years later from a very different culture. We are all human. There is only one world. Of course different cultures have different kinds of minds, so there is plenty of opportunity for misunderstanding. At bottom, though, it is the experience of the Tao that matters, not the concepts.
For what it's worth, I don't compare one or two English translations. I look at at least five, often more if they seem inconsistent.
Quoting Possibility
I strongly reject this. There may be metaphorical similarities, but people are always ready to mix up metaphysical and physical understanding.
Joanna C. Lee and Ken Smith, who have a good translation and provide both characters and a Pinyin transcription (all but unheard of in other translations), simply break the Tao Te Ching into two separate little books, The Pocket Tao, Lao Tzu's Classic of the Way [A Museworks Book, Pocket Chinese Classics, 2012] and The Pocket Te, Lao Tzu's Classic of Virtue [A Museworks Book, Pocket Chinese Classics, 2013]. The order in which to read these is thus up to the reader.
Book I does begin with statements about the Tao, and Book II with statements about Te. Since the Tao might be thought to be more important than Te, the format that reverses the books may then simply reflect that judgment, with the treatment of Te as an introduction or preliminary to the Tao. It is not clear that reversing the order would really make any difference in the teaching.
Verse 1: "The Way that can be spoken of, Is not the constant way."
The quality or preconceptions of a translation of the Tao Te Ching can usually be determined from the rendering of these lines. Those determined to unpack the meaning of Taoism in the translation, according to their own interpretation of Taoist doctrine, will often render these terse sentences into a paragraph, sometimes with irrecognizable renderings of the key words. The affection of a translator for Taoism cannot excuse a method that only obscures the nature of the text itself.
A serious question about translation is with tào as a verb. Since the noun can mean "road, way, path," Legge, Mair, Le Guin, and Muller are all tempted to produce a corresponding verb, "tred," "walk," "go," or "follow"… However, although Mathews' Chinese Dictionary [Harvard, 1972, pp.882-884] gives verbal meanings for the character as "speak, tell" (or even "lead, guide"), "tred," "walk," "go," or "follow" is not among them. Interestingly, no one has tried the translation, "The Tao that guides is not the constant Tao." The feeling seems to be that the Tao does guide. Indeed, in Chinese philosophy a "Way" means the actions recommended by any particular school or teaching, not just Taoism.
I think the reason we can make sense of the Way is more to do with the logical and qualitative structure of the text in relation to the world than anything to do with differences in time or culture.
Quoting T Clark
I’m well aware of this - it was a general comment for those who have joined the discussion, not aimed at anyone in particular. I think this multi-textual process is why you have such confidence that you can ‘hear what Lao Tzu is trying to say’. For myself, I’m reluctant to attribute such intentionality or desire to the original author. I think it detracts from our understanding of what the text presents in terms of wu-wei.
Quoting T Clark
I get that your approach is to make some definitive distinction between metaphysical and physical understanding, but I don’t subscribe to this duality myself. For me, reality consists of a dimensional structure of relations which renders the physical as a relative aspect of the metaphysical. There’s no mix-up in my book, although I understand the problem of metaphorical language in drawing such similarities. To drastically oversimplify, quantum physics assumes that quantities are fundamentally affected by energy in a qualitative system, whereas the TTC assumes that energy affects fundamental quality in a logical system. So, yes, there are certainly differences in approach, but not necessarily in the underlying metaphysics. Having said that, I don’t feel like we have to go there in this discussion at all.
Again, Lao must have had an instinct feeling for the nature of reality. All these poetic lines, except the last nonsensical ones, show a truly striking similarity with quantum field theoretical considerations. Although not expressed in mathematical language, both descriptions certainly have a common. Aren't we all made from the quantum vacuum?
If the Tao precedes God, it also precedes the quantum vacuum and any higher dimensional structure.
Fritjof Capra was praised and criticized for his Tao of Physics. Lederman writer of the God particle (if the universe is the answer, then what'sthe question?) wrote it to be a book not needed, and Woit criticized it for not being updated with the developments. Chew's bootstraps (with which the Tao is compared), although left behind at that time (60's and 70's), recently gained in power again, which shows Capra was on the right track. I read only parts of the book, but find Bohm's holographic universe much more interesting. Capra's emphasis on inter-connectedness and the whole was very welcome and it deserves mention that Chew's bootstraps, developed in the physically roaring sixties, together with Regge theory forming non-perturbative approaches to S-matrix theory (in relation to QCD, analytic continuation, and sheaf cohomologies), after being killed by political power and new reductionist models, are recently reincarnated
Quoting T Clark
:lol:
I've had my say more than once about this.
Quoting Hillary
Yes, as I've noted before.
Quoting Hillary
Capra is another one who doesn't know his metaphysics from his physics. Reading "Tao of Physics" was the first time I remember recognizing that.
As we've discussed before, and as I've noted in one of my recent posts, I don't see the Tao Te Ching as logical or qualitative. For me, it is metaphorical. Poetic. Experiential.
Quoting Possibility
I don't think Lao Tzu, as a good Taoist, wrote TTC with intentionality or desire. Or maybe that's what you're saying.
Quoting Possibility
That distinction is at the heart of my understanding, perception, of reality.
Quoting Possibility
I don't particularly want to talk about metaphysics in general, but it's open season on the metaphysics of the TTC and Taoism in general.
You should ad that it's nonsense. Gods don't need anything to precede them. But maybe heaven is made of it.
Quoting T Clark
He even has his physics not right..
Lin Yutang
[i]He who stands on tiptoe does not stand (firm),
He who strains his strides does not walk (well)
He who reveals himself is not luminous,
He who justifies himself is not far-famed,
He who boasts of himself is not given credit.
He who prides himself is not chief among men.
These in the eyes of Tao
Are called ''the dregs and tumors of Virtue,”
Which are things of disgust.
Therefore the man of Tao spurns them.[/i]
Stephen Mitchell
[i]He who stands on tiptoe
doesn't stand firm.
He who rushes ahead
doesn't go far.
He who tries to shine
dims his own light.
He who defines himself
can't know who he really is.
He who has power over others
can't empower himself.
He who clings to his work
will create nothing that endures.
If you want to accord with the Tao,
just do your job, then let go.[/i]
Ellen Marie Chen
[i]One who tiptoes cannot stand.
One who straddles cannot walk.
One who sees himself is not enlightened (ming).
One who justifies himself is not outstanding.
One who shows off (fa) his deeds is not meritorious.
One who boasts (ching) of himself does not lead (chang).
These to a Taoist are called:
Excess nature (yü te) and superfluous actions (shui hsing),
Avoided (o) even by things.
Therefore the Taoist does not indulge (ch’u) in them.[/i]
I think this verse is straightforward, familiar. It something we’ve heard before. Don’t reach for acclaim or success, it will backfire. Do what needs to be done, what your true self tells you to do, without regard for what other people think. If you want to have people’s regard, you can have it. All you have to do is stop wanting it, stop struggling for it.
This from Ellen Marie Chen’s translation of Verse 10:
[i]To give birth, to nurture,
To give birth yet not to claim possession (yu),
To act (wei) yet not to hold on to,
To grow (chang) yet not to lord over (tsai),
This is called the dark virtue (yüan te).[/i]
This is from Stephen Mitchell’s translation of Verse 13:
[i]Success is as dangerous as failure.
Hope is as hollow as fear.
What does it mean that success is as dangerous as failure?
Whether you go up the ladder or down it,
you position is shaky.
When you stand with your two feet on the ground,
you will always keep your balance.
What does it mean that hope is as hollow as fear?
Hope and fear are both phantoms
that arise from thinking of the self.
When we don't see the self as self,
what do we have to fear?[/i]
Derek Lin’s translation of Verse 34:
[i]The great Tao is like a flood
It can flow to the left or to the right
The myriad things depend on it for life, but it never stops
It achieves its work, but does not take credit
It clothes and feeds myriad things, but does not rule over them
Ever desiring nothing
It can be named insignificant
Myriad things return to it but it does not rule over them
It can be named great
Even in the end, it does not regard itself as great
That is how it can achieve its greatness.[/i]
Lin Yutang selection from the Chuang Tzu
'He who boasts of himself is not given credit. The man who claims distinguished service falls and the man who achieves fame will be defamed. Who can abandon distinction for service and reputation and return to the common level of men? Tao pervades everywhere, and yet does not show itself, Teh (Tao manifest) influences everything and yet does not make its name known. Live sincerely and plainly like the others and suffer yourself sometimes to be called a fool. Avoid being conspicuous and keep away from a position of power. Do not live for service and fame. Thus you will not criticize others and others will not criticize you. The perfect man has no (thought of) reputation."
Derek Lin’s commentary:
The one who stands on tiptoes, in order to raise himself or herself above others, cannot stand for long. The one who straddles in an exaggerated gait cannot walk any significant distance for long. The one who shows off himself or herself will, ironically, not be clearly perceived by others. The one who thinks he or she is always right will not be considered respectable or admirable by others. The one who incessantly praises himself or herself is not the person with true merit. The one who is always bragging about his or her achievements is not the person with lasting power. Those who are on the path of Tao speak of such things as if they were leftover food or useless growth, like a tumor. They despise such things and regard them with contempt. This is why those who possess the Tao do not engage in such activities. They do not show off, presume, or boast.
Dear mother of god...
A critique
"He who tiptoes can see over the wall and do ballet
She who strains his strides can escape
He who reveals herself shows beauty
She who justifies himself shows resilience
He who boasts herself can win the game and be given a lot of credit
She who prides himself can be powerful"
The "dregs and tumors" turned into gaseous benevolence!
That remains to be seen. His advocating of non-desire doesn't mean he's free of it. He surely had the desire to express this.
Quoting Hillary
I won't object to your comments, but until you're willing to respond seriously, I won't respond to you further.
I gave a serious critique. Every verse he wrote can be changed. Let's consider another verse. I'll pick a random one.
"Tao is a whirling emptiness (ch'ung),
Ye (erh) in use (yung) is inexhaustible (ying).
Fathomless (yuan),
It seems to be the ancestor (tsung) of ten thousand beings.
It blunts the sharp,
Unties the entangled,
Harmonizes the bright,
Mixes the dust.
Dark (chan),
It seems perhaps to exist (ts'un)."
Which suggests Zao was ahead of his time. What he meant to say was:
"Tao is the vacuum whirling with virtuality (closed propagators)
Yet in use (external) is inexhaustible (energy/mass)
Fathomless (converging),
It seems to be the underlayer (highers dimensional structure) of ten thousand universes,
It blunts the sharp (HUR),
Unties the entangled (interaction),
Collapses the wavefunction,
Mixes the Hilbert states.
Unobservable,
It's existence (reality) is doubted.
What else I need to say?
I appreciate the side-by-side commentaries and translations. So much to puzzle over in this cryptic poem.
:fire: :hearts: :fire:
I started out just reading the Stephen Mitchell translation, which is very Americanized, colloquial. Many don't like that. I acknowledge he leaves things out and rounds corners, but sometimes his interpretations are those that reach me the best. They are what attracted me to the TTC first and I still like it a lot. If you just want one translation to read, I would suggest that one.
If you've seen my posts here on the forum, I bring up Lao Tzu a lot. After a while it felt like I was presenting myself as more knowledgeable than I am, so I decided to start digging deeper, looking at more translations, reading commentaries. That's what lead me to this thread. I wanted to put some discipline into my ideas.
So, I'm glad you like it. The extra depth has meant a lot to me.
The humility is refreshing. I should have lots of time this summer (after finals) to revisit the Tao. Inspiring to have a comrade in arms.
I'm wondering about your take on desire. To my view, desire, broadly defined, is the prime motivator for artistic creation and spiritual aspiration. I get that Taoists and Buddhists (I'm a self-made universalist syncretist of sorts) have a beef with desire, and I understand that unregulated desire, untempered irrational desire, can cause a lot of psychical suffering. But I put desire at the heart of inspiration and inspiration at the heart of a life fully lived.
As I see it, for Lao Tzu, desire denotes our craving for worldly treasure - acclaim, success, money, power. On the flip side, our fear of pain, death, dishonor, poverty. From Verse 24, one of my favorite lines:
[i]Success is as dangerous as failure.
Hope is as hollow as fear.[/i]
The alternative is "wu wei," non-action, acting without acting. Acting without intention or desire. Acting spontaneously from our true selves.
If you're acting to achieve something or avoid something, that's desire. If you're acting from your heart, it's the Tao. Or actually, maybe Te. I get confused by that.
Keeping in mind, please, that this is my understanding. Lao Tzu gets pissed when I put words in his mouth.
Eek. That's an especially egregious misspelling on my part. Apologies. Typical of a work-post.
Quoting T Clark
Understood. :smile:
Off-topic but...
Kazantzakis' epitaph: I hope for nothing. I fear nothing. I am free.
Have to play evangelist for this beautiful powerful poem:
My God is not Almighty. He struggles, for he is in peril every moment; he trembles and stumbles in every living thing, and he cries out. He is defeated incessantly, but rises again, full of blood and earth, to throw himself into battle once more.
He is full of wounds, his eyes are filled with fear and stubbornness, his jawbones and temples are splintered. But he does not surrender, he ascends; he ascends with his feet, with his hands, biting his lips, undaunted.
My God is not All-holy. He is full of cruelty and savage justice, and he chooses the best mercilessly. He is without compassion; he does not trouble himself about men or animals; nor does he care for virtues and ideas. He loves all these things for a moment, then smashes them eternally and passes on.
He is a power that contains all things, that begets all things. He begets them, loves them, and destroys them. And if we say, "Our God is an erotic wind and shatters all bodies that he may drive on," and if we remember that eros always works through blood and tears, destroying every individual without mercy - then we shall approach his dread face a little closer.
My God is not All-knowing. His brain is a tangled skein of light and darkness which he strives to unravel in the labyrinth of the flesh.
He stumbles and fumbles. He gropes to the right and turns back; swings to the left and sniffs the air. He struggles above chaos in anguish. Crawling, straining, groping for unnumbered centuries, he feels the muddy coils of his brain being slowly suffused with light.
On the surface of his heavy, pitch-black head he begins with an indescribable struggle to create eyes by which to see, ears by which to hear.
My God struggles on without certainty. Will he conquer? Will he be conquered? Nothing in the Universe is certain. He flings himself into uncertainty; he gambles all his destiny at every moment.
He clings to warm bodies; he has no other bulwark. He shouts for help; he proclaims mobilization throughout the Universe.
It is our duty, on hearing his Cry, to run under his flag, to fight by his side, to be lost or to be saved with him.
God is imperiled. He is not almighty, that we may cross our hands, waiting for certain victory. He is not all-holy, that we may wait trustingly for him to pity and to save us.
Within the province of our ephemeral flesh all of God is imperiled. He cannot be saved unless we save him with our own struggles; nor can we be saved unless he is saved.
We are one. From the blind worm in the depths of the ocean to the endless arena of the Galaxy, only one person struggles and is imperiled: You. And within your small and earthen breast only one thing struggles and is imperiled: the Universe.
The Saviors of God
Nikos Kazantzakis
http://www.angel.net/~nic/askitiki.html
When I first read that I thought - "Yes, he means exactly the same thing that Lao Tzu did." Then I read the poem. It's the anti-Tao. For me, the Tao is about surrender of will. Wu wei is action without intention, without will. Kazantzakis' poem is a paean to Will with a capital "W." He has taken hope and fear and wrestled them till they were bloody carcasses lying on the sand. Then he held up their severed heads for the crowd to see so he could hear their roar. Lao Tzu saw through their illusion and didn't think about them any more.
Interesting take. I'll have to think more about that. Definitely something repulsive in Kazantzakis' fiery description of god. Though I love the poem.
Definitely powerful. "The power of will" is not just a cliche.
Going by the essence of Taoism (negation/inversion), a good Taoist is a bad Taoist...perhaps not a Taoist at all. :snicker:
"Then you're a taoist, you knucklehead!"
:snicker:
Brother Smith! T Clark is serious!.... :lol:
:snicker:
You're right, I do take this thread seriously. Please stop harassing it.
Just expressing my thoughts about it. We are free to criticize, n'est pas? I think it's a bunch of $##%^$.
Have patience. Wait until the mud settles and the water is clear. Remain unmoving until right action arises by itself.
Laozi
:smile:
:lol:
You've made your opinion clear. Now all you are doing is sniping with no substantive content. As I said, it's harassment. Please stop.
Alas, I am not Lao Tzu.
No worries T Clark! I have no desire to. Please continue this most interesting thread in all seriousness! I seriously keep my mouth shut. Wouldn't dare to open it again. Tao Lao Zao said some nice things about the quantum vacuum, interconnectedness of the whole and it's relation to it's parts, way ahead of his time, but I have absolutely no desire to follow his wisdom. Trying to avoid desire while not trying not to be attached to no desiring of it's negation is simply too much for me, as a desiring being. I have thrown all my craving and desiring for matarial wealth in the garbage recently. That suffices for me. Goodday and enjoy! :kiss:
This line made me curious to ask if you've had a look at Religion and Nothingness by Nishitani, hailing from the Kyoto school. I've spent some time with the book but can't say I grasped its thrust or thesis. It kind of slipped through with the sands; might be time to take a second look. I recall it had a kind of Tao-ish atmosphere of paradox.
I encountered the Kyoto School during Buddhist Studies. They sure are difficult scholars to read, as they were all steeped in classical Japanese thought and also highly educated in Western philosophy. At the time I tried to read that book, I found it very hard to fathom, but maybe I would do better this time (that was many years ago).
Quoting T Clark
I was pathologically attracted to Samuel Beckett's full-throated pessimism in my younger, more Nauseated* days. This passage from Watt has a pertinent ring. It's the centerpiece of Beckett's description of the house and effects of one Mr. Knott:
[quote=Beckett - Watt, p.232]For Watt now found himself in the midst of things which, if they consented to be named, did so as it were with reluctance. And the state in which Watt found himself resisted formulation in a way no state had ever done, in which Watt had ever found himself, and Watt had found himself in a great many states, in his day. Looking at a pot, for example, or thinking of a pot, at one of Mr. Knott's pots, it was in vain that Watt said, Pot, pot. Well, perhaps not quite in vain, but very nearly. For it was not a pot, the more he looked, the more he reflected, the more he felt sure of that, that it was not a pot at all. It resembled a pot, it was almost a pot, but it was not a pot of which one could say, Pot, pot, and be comforted. It was in vain that it answered, with unexceptionable adequacy, all the purposes, and performed all the offices, of a pot, it was not a pot. And it was just this hairbreadth departure from the nature of a true pot that so excruciated Watt.[/quote]
*A la Satre. Fascinating how Sartre's Nausea and a specific kind of schizophrenic mysticism, as related firsthand by two or three extremely articulate and intellectual schizophrenics in Louis A. Sass's Madness and Modernism, link up. I take Sartre's Nausea to be the obverse of so-called Enlightenment. The difficulty, of course, lies in getting the coin to flip - but it can be done. (I know firsthand.)
Sass describes a similar if not identical state borrowing DeChirico's term Stimmung. Much to say about this notion but this bit from The Diary of a Schizophrenic Girl has to do for today:
"When, for example, I looked at a chair or a jug, I thought not of their use or function - a jug not as something to hold water or milk, a chair not as something to sit in - but as having lost their names, their functions and meanings." (bolds mine)
Last, from Joseph Campbell, to, with any luck, tie this post together:
"The schizophrenic is drowning in the same waters in which the mystic swims with delight."
@Wayfarer
Interested in your thoughts on the link between so-called "Enlightenment", Nausea, madness...
This line was always a favorite. It seems to have some link to Pascal's: "All of humanity's problems stem from his inability to sit quietly in a room alone."
Quoting T Clark
This I connect to the notion of a flexible, flowing self-confidence. For example, 20 years ago I would often schedule my daily and weekly tasks to be sure all were completed in a timely fashion. Whereas today (I'm 46, for reference) my attitude is: this will happen; just wait and see it happen.
A lot of spiritual emotion in that line.
I think you're right. The Tao Te Ching emphasizes living lives without desiring more than you have or need. That would include novelty, excitement, fashionable activities. Some say the passage from the Tao Te Ching is one of those that endorses paternalistic government - the ruler keeping his people ignorant and docile.
For what it's worth, the trips I took to Europe with my family in 1989 and with my brother in 2014 were among the high points of my life. I still think about them all the time.
Quoting ZzzoneiroCosm
Acting without acting, wu wei, is one of the most important ideals of Taoism. Have you had the experience of spontaneous action arising from within without forethought or intention? Maybe when you're being most creative. I certainly have. Action arising from your true self. The subject shows up time after time in many verses.
Quoting ZzzoneiroCosm
One of my favorite verses. The line after the one you quoted was shocking to me when I first read it:
[i]I do not know whose child it is,
It is an image of what precedes God.[/i]
Lao Tzu says the Tao comes before God. What could be more amazing, radical, maybe blasphemous than that.
Would you call this a "flow" state?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_(psychology)
Yes, shocking and radical. And with a koanic ring. I dig it.
"Flow" is not a term I would normally use in this context, but if by that you mean
...that sense of fluidity between your body and mind, where you are totally absorbed by and deeply focused on something, beyond the point of distraction. Time feels like it has slowed down. Your senses are heightened. You are at one with the task at hand, as action and awareness sync to create an effortless momentum.
then I guess the answer is yes.
This is a clip I've used several times here on the forum. It's from "Billy Elliot," a great movie. Billy, a working class boy from a rough mining town has just finished his audition for a prestigious dancing school:
Actually, I see I've used it on this thread before.
Nice clip, and perfectly describes the flow state. A state of inspiration. The connection to desire is most puzzling to me. As I said above: I take desire to be at the heart of inspiration and inspiration to be at the heart of a life fully lived.
Made me think of the dancing mystic Nijinsky.
[quote=Nijinsky's Diary] It is not possible for man to understand God - God understands God. Man is God and therefore understands God. I am God. I am a man. I have flesh, I am flesh, I am not descended from flesh. Flesh is created by God. I am God. I am God. I am God.[/quote]
Start at 00:30.
Are you familiar with the four Noble Truths of Buddhism? Forgive my summary:
Taoism is not Buddhism, but I've always thought their ideas of suffering are similar.
No prob. I'm familiar.
As it reads, I just can't agree. If "desire" is qualified so as not to exclude the utilization of desire to ignite inspiration, I would be more sympathetic. I have too much firsthand experience of the profound energic outcomes of intense desire.
[quote=Blake]Energy is eternal Delight.[/quote]
It was desire to be "enlightened" that set me on the path of meditation. It was desire to be A Great Artist that grounded my devotion to the arts and produced the wonderful fruits thereof.
I get, as I said above, that certain kinds of desire result in profound existential suffering: in a word, anguish. I have firsthand knowledge of that, too - like all humans have.
I know J.D. Salinger sets out a kind of rebuttal to the Buddhist desire thing in Franny and Zooey. It seems to be time to take a second look at that.
Any more insight into the issue of desire is welcome. I'm enjoying the exchange.
The wiki page on Tanha is helpful:
"It is typically translated as craving,[3] and is of three types: k?ma-ta?h? (craving for sensual pleasures), bhava-ta?h? (craving for existence), and vibhava-ta?h? (craving for non-existence)."
If Tanha only includes these few sorts of desires, no problem, I (mostly) get it.
Quoting ZzzoneiroCosm
Keeping in mind, of course, that you are disagreeing with Lao Tzu and not just me. Let me see if I can put together a post about desire. It may take me a while.
Yes, Lao Tzu and the Buddha. But then again "all desire, unqualified desire" may be a fatally imprecise translation.
Although I see them as related, the Taoist and Buddhist understandings of desire are not exactly the same. I'll put something together.
It is a luxury to have someone questioning the things I write. It makes me work harder to understand.
[quote=Salinger]You can say the Jesus Prayer from now till doomsday, but if you don't realize that the only thing that counts in the religious life is detachment, I don't see how you ever move an inch. Detachment, buddy, and only detachment. Desirelessness. 'Cessations from all hankerings.' It's this business of desiring, if you want to know the goddam truth, that makes an actor in the first place. Why're you making me tell you things you already know? Somewhere along the line - in one damn incarnation or another, if you like - you not only had a hankering to be an actor or an actress but to be a good one. You're stuck with it now. You can't just walk out on the results of your own hankerings. Cause and effect, buddy, cause and effect. The only thing you can do now, the only religious thing you can do, is act. Act for God, if you want to - be God's actress, if you want to. What could be prettier?[/quote]
Sounds like whichever character is talking in the quote has studied some Buddhism. I think of "detachment" as a Buddhist concept, although I think it is consistent with Taoism too.
Desire
The meanings of words can be confusing in the Tao Te Ching. Sometimes they are used in ways that seem inconsistent or even contradictory. Even when that is not true, there are often subtle differences between usages in one verse compared to another. Added to that is the fact that different translators make different decisions about what the ancient Chinese words mean in modern English and different interpretations of the overall meaning of concepts and verses. Adding even more to the confusion is the fact that Lao Tzu was writing 2,500 years ago in a culture that was vastly different from ours.
There is a metaphor I use to describe how I handle all that ambiguity and try to come to my own understanding. I sometimes think of the different verses and different translations as snapshots of the true meanings taken from many different angles. You can’t get the idea from a single snapshot. You have to look at them all, then shuffle them and look at them again. Then go away and come back later, reshuffle them, and try again. That way, you can build up an impressionistic understanding of what Lao Tzu was trying to say.
So.. what I’ve done is copy all the verses that use the word “desire” or a derivative word in Ellen Marie Chen’s translation. I chose her translation because I found her usage of the word the most satisfying of those I looked at.
Alternate Verse 1
[i]Non-being, to name the origin of heaven and earth;
Being, to name the mother of ten thousand things.
Therefore, always without desire,
In order to observe the hidden mystery;
Always with desire,
In order to observe the manifestations.[/i]
Verse 3
[i]Do not honor the worthy,
So that the people will not contend with one another.
Do not value hard-to-get goods,
So that the people will not turn robbers.
Do not show objects of desire,
So that the people's minds are not disturbed.
Therefore, when the sage rules:
He empties the minds of his people,
Fills their bellies,
Weakens their wills,
And strengthens their bones.
Always he keeps his people in no-knowledge and no-desire,
Such that he who knows dares not act.
Act by no-action,
Then, nothing is not in order.[/i]
Verse 19
[i]Eliminate sagacity, discard knowledge,
People will be profited a hundredfold.
Eliminate humanity, discard righteousness,
People will again practice filial piety and parental love.
Abolish artistry, discard profit-seeking,
Robbers and thieves shall disappear.
These three pairs adorn what is deficient.
Therefore, let there be the advice:
Look to the undyed silk, hold on to the uncarved wood,
Reduce your sense of self and lessen your desires.[/i]
Verse 29
[i]One who desires to take the world and act upon it,
I see that it cannot be done.
The world is a spirit vessel,
Which cannot be acted upon.
One who acts on it fails,
One who holds on to it loses.
Therefore things either move forward or follow behind;
They blow hot or blow cold;
They are strong or weak;
They get on or they get off.
Therefore the sage gets rid of over-doing,
Gets rid of extravagances,
Gets rid of excesses.[/i]
Verse 34
[i]The great Tao floods over,
To the left, to the right.
Ten thousand beings live by it,
And it does not reject them.
Work is accomplished, yet it has no name.
It clothes and nourishes ten thousand beings,
But does not lord over them.
Always without desire,
It may be named the small;
Ten thousand beings return to it,
Yet it does not lord over them,
It may be named the great.
Because it never considers itself great,
Therefore it can accomplish its greatness.[/i]
Verse 37
[i]Tao everlasting does not act,
And yet nothing is not done.
If kings and barons can abide by it,
The ten thousand things will transform by themselves.
If in transforming desire is aroused,
I shall suppress it by the nameless uncarved wood.
With the nameless uncarved wood,
There shall be no desire.
Without desire there is thus quietude.
The world shall be self-ordered.[/i]
Verse 46
[i]When the world practices Tao,
Fast horses are used for their dung.
When the world does not practice Tao,
War horses give birth at the borders.
Among offenses, none is greater than having what is desirable.
Among calamities, none is greater than not knowing contentment.
Among blames, none is greater than the desire for gain.
Therefore the contentment that comes from knowing contentment
Is a long lasting contentment.[/i]
Verse 57
[i]Govern a state by the normal;
Conduct warfare as the abnormal;
Take the empire when there is no business.
How do I know such should be the case?
By the following:
In an empire with many prohibitions,
People are often poor;
When people have many sharp weapons,
The state is in great darkness;
When persons abound in ingenuity,
Abnormal objects multiply;
When laws are abundantly promulgated,
There are many thieves and brigands.
Therefore the sage says:
I do not act,
Hence the people transform by themselves;
I love tranquility,
Hence the people are normal by themselves;
I have no business,
Hence the people grow rich by themselves;
I have no desire,
Hence the people are like the uncarved wood by themselves.[/i]
Verse 64
[i]What is at equilibrium is easy to maintain;
What has not emerged is easy to plan;
What is fragile is easy to dissolve;
What is minute is easy to disperse.
Act when there is yet nothing to do.
Govern when there is yet no disorder.
A tree whose trunk is of a man's embrace,
Begins from something extremely tiny.
A tower of nine stories high,
Is built from a heap of earth.
A trip of a thousand miles,
Begins right at one's feet.
He who acts fails,
He who holds on to loses.
Therefore the sage does not act so he does not fail,
He does not hold on to, so he does not lose.
The people in launching their projects,
Often fail when these are near completion.
Had they been as careful at the end as at the beginning,
There would have been no failures.
Therefore the sage desires not to desire,
He does not treasure hard-to-get goods;
Learns not to learn,
He recovers the transgressions of many.
In assisting the self-becoming of all beings,
He dares not act.[/i]
Verse 66
[i]Rivers and seas can be kings of the hundred valleys,
Because they are good at flowing downwards.
Therefore they can be kings of the hundred valleys.
Thus if you desire to be above the people,
Your words must reach down to them.
If you desire to lead the people,
Your person must be behind them.
Thus the sage is above,
Yet the people do not feel his weight.
He stays in front,
Yet the people do not suffer any harm.
Thus all gladly praise him untiringly.
Because he does not contend with any,
Therefore no one under heaven can contend with him.[/i]
Thanks for setting this out. Looking forward to taking a close look at it soon.
I had a close look and was still having trouble getting it so I turned to a secondary source. Interested in your take on this:
"Taoism, like Buddhism, distinguishes between desires, deciding to split the one force into two (outer, or material, desires and inner, or immaterial, desires). Outer desires are equivalent to craving in Buddhism; a force for evil to be vanquished through religious methods. Inner desires, however, are our desires to better ourselves and bring ourselves closer to Tao. These desires are necessary, as without them, we would either be craving-driven gluttons or inactive nobodies. With them, we refine ourselves to be better and closer to the state of total immersion and unity which can either be identified with nirvana or Tao. Thus, as we fulfill our inner desires, we get closer to that indescribable completion and farther from our animalistic impulses. As we get closer, our desires lessen, and the balance within us shifts toward fulfillment and away from longing. Only after some time of this shifting can we make a meaningful attempt to let go completely and unite ourselves with our own innermost natures. According to the Tao Te Ching, “he who knows that enough is enough will always have enough.” "
https://jwbarlament.medium.com/a-universal-truth-desire-in-buddhism-taoism-and-stoicism-cd28a34526f5
The distinction between craving and aspiration seems solid to me. Not sure how this is reflected in the Tao Te Ching, but maybe you can point me in the right direction.
The focus on contentment, understood as the opposite of desire, also rings true to me.
https://www.meaning.ca/article/contentment-as-the-way-of-nature-insights-from-taoism/
So if we take contentment to be the opposite of desire we may be able to substitute the word "discontent" where we find the word "desire."
That's making some sense to me, but, again, not sure if that's an accurate reading of the Tao Te Ching.
I'll say it again - you need to find your own understanding of the Tao Te Ching and not depend on what I say. Speaking of which:
Boy. I really hate this. It's about as far from my understanding of what Lao Tzu was describing as you can get. This guy is trying to turn a profound vision of the deepest human experience into a comfortable new age self-help book. Hate, hate, hate. Sorry.
Yes, I know, this is a very unTaoist response.
Quoting ZzzoneiroCosm
I used this quote from Stephen Mitchell's translation of Verse 13 a couple of pages back:
[i]Success is as dangerous as failure.
Hope is as hollow as fear.[/i]
For me, "aspiration" is the same as "hope."
Quoting ZzzoneiroCosm
Quoting ZzzoneiroCosm
Some excerpts from the Tao Te Ching translated by Ellen Marie Chen:
Verse 33
One who knows contentment is rich;
Verse 35
[i]Hold aloft the Great Image,
The whole world will go to it.
Going to it, they will meet with no harm,
Only safety, peace, and contentment.[/i]
Verse 44
[i]Your name and your body, which is dearer?
Your body and material goods, which is more abundant?
Gain and loss, which is illness?
Therefore in excessive love one necessarily goes to great expenses,
In hoarding much one necessarily loses heavily.
Knowing contentment one does not suffer disgrace,
Knowing when to stop one does not become exhausted.
This way one may last long.[/i]
Verse 46
[i]Among offenses, none is greater than having what is desirable.
Among calamities, none is greater than not knowing contentment.
Among blames, none is greater than the desire for gain.
Therefore the contentment that comes from knowing contentment
Is a long lasting contentment.[/i]
I'm getting really uncomfortable with this. I feel like I'm imposing my understanding on yours by force.
I don't get that sense at all, no sense of imposition. I take your view to be just one of many possibilities.
Though I do appreciate your concern.
Just speak your mind. I've been thinking for myself for a loooooooooong time.
I went ahead and made the substitution ("discontent" for "desire") and now the thing makes a lot more sense to me. Take a look. :smile:
Alternate Verse 1
Non-being, to name the origin of heaven and earth;
Being, to name the mother of ten thousand things.
Therefore, always without discontent,
In order to observe the hidden mystery;
Always with discontent,
In order to observe the manifestations.
Verse 19
Eliminate sagacity, discard knowledge,
People will be profited a hundredfold.
Eliminate humanity, discard righteousness,
People will again practice filial piety and parental love.
Abolish artistry, discard profit-seeking,
Robbers and thieves shall disappear.
These three pairs adorn what is deficient.
Therefore, let there be the advice:
Look to the undyed silk, hold on to the uncarved wood,
Reduce your sense of self and lessen your discontent.
Verse 29
One who in discontent desires to take the world and act upon it,
I see that it cannot be done.
The world is a spirit vessel,
Which cannot be acted upon.
One who acts on it fails,
One who holds on to it loses.
Therefore things either move forward or follow behind;
They blow hot or blow cold;
They are strong or weak;
They get on or they get off.
Therefore the sage gets rid of over-doing,
Gets rid of extravagances,
Gets rid of excesses.
Verse 34
The great Tao floods over,
To the left, to the right.
Ten thousand beings live by it,
And it does not reject them.
Work is accomplished, yet it has no name.
It clothes and nourishes ten thousand beings,
But does not lord over them.
Always without discontent
It may be named the small;
Ten thousand beings return to it,
Yet it does not lord over them,
It may be named the great.
Because it never considers itself great,
Therefore it can accomplish its greatness.
Verse 37
Tao everlasting does not act,
And yet nothing is not done.
If kings and barons can abide by it,
The ten thousand things will transform by themselves.
If in transforming discontent is aroused,
I shall suppress it by the nameless uncarved wood.
With the nameless uncarved wood,
There shall be no discontent
Without discontent there is thus quietude.
The world shall be self-ordered.
What's missing for me with "discontent" is the sense of striving, grasping that I feel with "desire." Discontent is the result of desire.
I really like the substitution. It adds clarity and therefore beauty. To my mind, it retains "the sense of striving and grasping"...
Maybe "desirous discontent" could satisfy both of us?...
Let’s just let this be a point of disagreement for us. There’s no reason we have to agree on what Lau Tzu is trying to say.
One last thought on desire before we move on. I'm excited to get to the rest of the book.
I take desire, whether conscious or unconscious, to be a kind of primal or underlying motivation for all human activity. If we eat, in some sense we have desired to eat. So when Lao Tzu writes "desire" it must not be a reference to all kinds of desire but must be a reference to a certain kind of desire. It's a question of interpretation what sort of desire he refers to. Possibly he deliberately leaves that up to us.
That's all I've got. I'm ready to move forward.
Again, I appreciate your insight and your company here, and I get that we won't always agree. I don't expect us to. With any luck, the fact that we disagree about desire has made you feel less impositioning.
:cool:
I've been thinking about desire too. Some thoughts:
I agree the obscurantism of the book is a good part of the point. It forces us to learn the Tao on our own; we have to fill in the blanks. It's not obvious to me that the many blanks need to remain blanks to be true to the text. I see ultimate value and perhaps Lao Tzu's intended outcome in my very personal filling-in of the blanks.
Put differently: While I agree Lao Tzu wrote deliberately obscurantically, I do think he wanted his book to be understood. He was after an odd sort of understanding: he wants, not himself, but the reader, to be the teacher.
The atmosphere of paradox is part of the brilliance of this conception, as it allows the reader to approach the koanic epoche and dwell therein - in a kind of meditative suspension of judgment; even ataraxia - and thereafter to sort out the paradox with his own interpretive analysis.
And, of course the koanic epoche remains accessible even after the analysis, reanalysis, rereanalysis...
Truly brilliant.
Quoting Hillary
I appreciate this serious attempt to address what's at stake in these fascinating worldviews.
Samsara, or the ephemeral - this first-blush existential emptiness can at first cause the mind to despair: The stars race blindly on. But acceptance of the samsaric can indeed open vistas to a profound peacefulness - as described here:
Quoting Hillary
Quoting Hillary
The notion of no-self is, to my view, deeply interlinked with the flow of cause and effect - in a word, with samsara.
Thanks for reading my words. Really appreciate. I was expecting scepticism or cynism, or dunno what.
:smile:
It's truly how I like to go through life. The conscious striving for it seems, at least for me, a hindrance. I've experienced such "dandelion fluff" feeling a few times in my life. But they came at unexpected moments and psychologists label it "the manic state of the bipolar". Dear mother of god... The first time I experienced it was during a psychosis. Which was rightly labeled as such, as I saw in hindsight! My level of consciousness was not too high then. Now I am conscious about such states, even when a psychotic part is involved (which makes it the question if it's truly a psychosis). During those dandelion episodes, it feels as if no efforts are made, as if the playing is what you are, as if borders have evaporated. Which is quite annoying for other people sometimes, though no evil is meant. It seems though that these episodes don't arrive anymore. But who knows. And maybe I'm dandelion right now... :smile:
There is a close link between mania and Maslow's "peak experience." The first is typically centered in delusion. The second, in spiritual growth and healthy inspiration.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_experience
No problem. It was clear that this particular post was a serious attempt to contribute. It's fun to play the clown on sites like this too. :joke:
@ArielAssante
You'll find the @ button at the top of the text-entry box, close to the bold and italics options. Welcome to the forum!
To unhappy people, there's nothing more annoying than happiness.
Couldn't agree more! ZzzoneiroCosm, that's quite a name!
:fire: :yawn: :fire:
There is a caricature of eastern philosophies that says they promote a fuzzy; unfocussed; don't worry, be happy attitude. I have no problem with what you've written as long as we recognize that wu wei, action without action, takes place with deep attention and awareness.
I see the Taoist world view as a metaphysical understanding. As such, it has it's own absolute presuppositions. As I see it, one of the absolute presuppositions of a scientific viewpoint is that there exists an objective reality that continues whether or not we, humans, are involved as observers. In Taoism, that presupposition is replaced by the Tao, which is a featureless unity. It is the act of naming that divides that unity and brings our everyday observable world into existence by creating the multiplicity of our world, the so-called 10,000 things.
Worries and happiness have no place in the dandelion fluff float. One just floats through life, not being busy, not acting while acting. Life floats by while my flow floats by life. There is no cause no effect, no good no bad, no intention, no impact, no force, no pressure. Just the beating of the heart, the voices and colors of the mind, in full understanding of the colors and voices of the world in which they flow. The busy man is changed in the unbussines of natural transformation, denying itself while being.
And then one realizes someone pisses in your milk and tries to steal your honey. And that someone could be me...
I appreciate your confessing to a quibble.
The above we kind of agreed has some connection to flow states.
Lao Tzu recognized and acknowledged the struggle you are dealing with. It's one of the fundamental insights of the Tao Te Ching.
Don’t spend too much time thinking about stupid shit.
Why should you care if people agree or disagree with you?
Why should you care if others find you attractive or not?
Why should you care about the things that worry others?
Call bullshit on all that.
Let other people get worked up
as they try to enjoy themselves.
I’m not going to give myself away.
A baby doesn’t know how to smile, but it’s still happy.
Let other people get excited about stuff.
I’m not going to hang on to anything.
I’m not going to fill my mind with ideas.
I’m not going to get stuck in a rut,
tied down to any one place.
Other people are clever;
I guess I must be stupid.
Other people have goals;
I guess I must be aimless.
Like the wind. Or the waves.
I’m not like other people.
I’m getting right with Tao."
- Translated by Ron Hogan, 1995, Chapter 20
https://www.egreenway.com/taoism/ttclz20.htm
Abolish study and you will be free from care.
"What the distinction is between 'yea' and 'aye'", "what the difference is between 'good' and 'evil'";
that "one should stand in awe of what others stand in awe of"; - how vast (is the study of these things)!
There is no end to it!
But when all men are joyous as if celebrating the Great Sacrifice or climbing the heights in spring, then I alone,
so passive, - giving no sign, like an infant that has not yet smiles; - so forlorn,
like one who has nowhere to turn! When all men have plenty, I alone am like one who is left out.
I have indeed the heart of a fool, - so obtuse!
Let ordinary men be bright and intelligent, I alone am stupid and confused.
Let ordinary men be astute and far-sighted, I alone am dull and mope-eyed.
Wan like the waning moon; adrift like one who has nowhere to rest!
Let all men have a purpose, I alone am ignorant like a boor.
I alone am different from others because I prize feeding on "the Mother". "
- Translated by Jan J. L. Duyvendak, 1954, Chapter 20
Cease learning many things, we shall have peace;
Between the flattering "yea" and honest "yes,"
The difference is small, but the effect
World-wide, when good or evil we reject;
The evil that men fear not, no one fears,
And wastefulness without restraint appears.
The multitude of men look satisfied,
They feed at feasts, they mount on towers of pride,
And I alone seem timorous and still,
No signs of promise act upon my will,
A babe not yet matured, sad and forlorn,
Without a home, to desolation born.
The multitude of men have goods to spare,
Tis only I who wander everywhere
Bereft of all, with dull and stupid gaze,
Myself a chaos and my mind a maze.
The multitude of common men are bright,
And critical and keen, and full of light,
While I alone confused appear to be,
Drifting about on some dark, lonely sea;
The multitude on doing things are bent,
While I alone appear incompetent,
A rustic rude, I differ from all others,
But oh! the food I prize and seek is Our Eternal Mother's."
- Translated by Isaac Winter Heysinger, 1903, Chapter 20
What is actually the difference between "yes" and "no"?
What is actually the difference between good and bad?
Must we fear what others fear?
The complexity is limitless!
In general, the people are happy, as if they were enjoying a royal feast,
Or as if they had climbed to the top of the tower on a spring day.
I alone am indifferent and quiet, I show no signs,
Like a baby who cannot smile yet,
Depressed as if I do not have a home to go back to.
All the others have more than enough,
And I alone, it seems, have a need to make up for what is missing.
Perhaps my thoughts are the thoughts of a fool,
Ignorant of knowledge, despised by everyone!
The vulgar person is bright,
I alone am so dull and toneless.
The vulgar person is clear,
I alone am so dull and opaque.
I am drifting, I am not anchored,
Swinging back and forth, I am not attached.
In general, everybody has something to do,
I alone am at a loose end, aimless.
I alone am different from the others,
But I value the quest for
Existence that comes from the big mother.
Good and bad, like "yes" and "no," are identical in the eyes of the omniscient sage.
But he is afraid of them, since they are infinite, and can therefore not be foreseen.
However, all told, he, the sage, is different from the people."
- Translated by Chohan Chou-Wing, Chapter 20
Personal favorite, so far:
What is the difference between saying yes because you agree
and saying yes because you want to please?
What is the difference between good and evil?
When everybody avoids something,
Does it mean it must be avoided?
How ridiculous all this is!
This mode of thinking takes one far from the ultimate Truth!
The crowds are busily involved with their daily routines.
As if they are attending a feast,
or walking up a beautiful terrace in Spring.
I alone am deserted.
The future seems unknown,
Just as an infant's future is unknown.
I appear to be tired in a directionless journey.
When everybody appears to have more than enough
I alone seem like someone who have lost everything.
Is my mind that of a fool?
People in their mundane worlds look bright.
I on the other hand look dull.
People in the mundane worlds look clever,
I on the other hand look boring.
My mind is unsettled like the open sea
and never restless like the wind.
Everyone has his properties and status.
I alone look poor and lonely.
I am different from the crowd.
I alone value drawing my nutrients from Mother."
- Translated by Lok Sang Ho, 2002, Chapter 20
Have you seen this website?
https://terebess.hu/english/tao/_index.html
Rest your shining spirit and embrace the One.
Can you forever hold onto it?
Concentrate your breath and attain the utmost softness.
Can you become a baby?
Clean your mysterious mirror.
Can you keep it free of blemish?
Love the people and keep the state in peace.
Can you rule through no-action?
As the gate of Heaven opens and closes,
Can you play the female part?
As bright light reaches all four directions,
Can you remain unknowing?
To give people life and nurture them;
To give them life, without possessing them;
To rule them, without depending on them;
To lead them, without directing them -
This is called the mysterious Te."
- Translated by Kim Ha Poong, Chapter 10
Every translation is its own interpretation...
Stephen Mitchell
[i]There was something formless and perfect
before the universe was born.
It is serene. Empty.
Solitary. Unchanging.
Infinite. Eternally present.
It is the mother of the universe.
For lack of a better name,
I call it the Tao.
It flows through all things,
inside and outside, and returns
to the origin of all things.
The Tao is great.
The universe is great.
Earth is great.
Man is great.
These are the four great powers.
Man follows the earth.
Earth follows the universe.
The universe follows the Tao.
The Tao follows only itself.[/i]
Ellen Marie Chen
[i]There was something nebulous existing (yu wu hun ch’eng),
Born before heaven and earth.
Silent, empty,
Standing alone (tu), altering not (pu kaki),
Moving cyclically without becoming exhausted (pu tai),
Which may be called the mother of all under heaven.
I know not its name,
I give its alias (tzu), Tao.
If forced to picture it,
I say it is “great” (ta).
Therefore Tao is great,
Heaven is great,
Earth is great,
The king is also great.
In the realm there are four greats,
And the king is one of them.
Humans follow (fa) earth,
Earth follows heaven,
Heaven follows Tao,
Tao follows self-becoming (tzu-jan).[/i]
Ron Hogan
[i]Something perfect has existed forever,
even longer than the universe.
It's a vast, unchanging void.
There's nothing else like it.
It goes on forever and never stops.
Everything else came from it.
I don't know what else to call it
So I'll call it Tao.
What's it like?
I can tell you this much: it's great.
Something that great lasts.
Something that lasts goes a long way.
And something that goes a long way
always comes back to the beginning.
Tao's great.
Heaven's great.
Earth's great.
And someone who's in touch with Tao is great, too.
Those are the four greatest things in the universe
and a Master is one of them.
Someone who's in touch with Tao
is in touch with the earth.
The earth is in touch with heaven.
Heaven's in touch with Tao.
Tao's in touch with the way things are.[/i]
I like this verse, at least the first stanza. I get a bit lost in the others, especially since some of the translations indicate that the other stanzas directly follow from the first. I don’t see the connection.
I’ve included Ron Hogan’s interpretation, which I can’t decide if I like. This translation was suggested by ZzzoneiroCosm. It’s much more American and less poetic than any of the other translations. If I had read it first, I don’t know if I would have been attracted to the Tao Te Ching as much as I was.
I’ve also included all of Lin Yutang’s selections from the Chuang Tzu, which I really like. It’s long so I’ve placed it in hide/reveal.
Stanza 1 - Stephen Mitchell’s translation
[i]There was something formless and perfect
before the universe was born.
It is serene. Empty.
Solitary. Unchanging.
Infinite. Eternally present.
It is the mother of the universe.
For lack of a better name,
I call it the Tao.
It flows through all things,
inside and outside, and returns
to the origin of all things.[/i]
As I noted, I like this stanza. It feels like a review section before the midterm exam for the verses covered so far. I especially like the discussion of how the Tao got its name. Turns out it was just made up because we couldn’t think of anything else to call it. It’s kind of a nickname. For me that answers the paradox of Verse 1, where Lao Tzu just jumps in without explanation and names the nameless.
The subject of the cyclic return of the 10,000 things to the Tao is reiterated here. As I’ve noted in earlier posts, I struggled with this idea for a long time. Now, I see it as recognition that, while the Tao is separated into the 10,000 things by the act of naming, the 10,000 things are always returning to the Tao, i.e. that the act of creation didn’t happen 1.4 billion years ago, it’s always happening. It’s happening now. I think the idea of returning is one of those things that means different things depending on the situation.
Stanzas 2 and 3 - Stephen Mitchell translation
[i]The Tao is great.
The universe is great.
Earth is great.
Man is great.
These are the four great powers.
Man follows the earth.
Earth follows the universe.
The universe follows the Tao.
The Tao follows only itself.[/i]
These stanzas discuss what I have called a “ladder” in previous posts. There are a lot of different ladders in the Tao Te Ching and related documents. Here are a few examples:
From Verse 42 - Stephen Mitchell
[i]The Tao gives birth to One.
One gives birth to Two.
Two gives birth to Three.
Three gives birth to all things.[/i]
From Verse 18 - Stephan Stenud
[i]When the great Tao is abandoned,
Benevolence and righteousness arise.
When wisdom and knowledge appear,
Great pretense arises.
When family ties are disturbed,
Devoted children arise.
When people are unsettled,
Loyal ministers arise.[/i]
From “The Great One Gives Birth to the Waters” - a text related to the Tao Te Ching. Very confusing.
{The Great One} gave birth to Water. Water returned to assist (A) {The Great One}, [and] by means of this the Heavens were completed/manifested. The Heavens returned to assist {The Great One}, [and] by means of this the Earth was completed. The Heavens and Earth [returned to assist each other] [and] by means of this the Spirits and Luminaries were completed. The Spirits and Luminaries returned to assist each other, [and] by means of this Yin and Yang were completed. Yin and Yang returned to assist each other, [and] by means of this the Four Seasons were completed. The Four Seasons returned to assist each other (E), [and] by means of this Cold and Hot (F) were completed. Cold and Hot returned to assist each other, [and] by means of this Wet and Dry (G) were completed. Wet and Dry returned to assist each other, completing the Yearly Cycle (H) and that‘s all….
In this verse, it seems as if Lao Tzu is working to connect the cosmic and the human. To show where we fit in.
[i]Man follows the earth.
Earth follows the universe.
The universe follows the Tao.
The Tao follows only itself.[/i]
In some of the translations, instead of “man” it says “the ruler,” which raises the question that comes up often - whether the Tao Te Ching is meant for all of us or just the bosses.
Humanity, Earth, Heaven, and the Tao are called the four great powers. There is clearly a hierarchy with the Tao at the top.
[hide="Reveal"]
Lin Yutang’s commentary
In this chapter, the working of the eternal principle of Tao and the silent revolutions of the heavenly bodies are seen as a model worthy of the imitation by man. It restates the argument that Tao should not be named, and if it is given a name, it is purely an exigency of human speech. It also states the principle of reversion of all things to their origin, a principle which makes creation and destruction different aspects of the same process.
Lin Yutang’s selections from the Chuang Tzu
[i]25.1. THE MYSTERY OF THE UNIVERSE. Is the sky revolving around? Is the earth remaining still? Are the sun and the moon competing for their places? Who manages them? Who holds them in control? Who has nothing to do and is making these things move? Is it perhaps that there is a mechanism so that the heavenly bodies cannot help themselves? Is it perhaps that they continue to revolve and cannot stop themselves? Clouds become rain, and rain becomes clouds. Who makes them rise and come down? Who has nothing to do and is urging them to do so for his own pleasure? The wind rises from the north; it blows east and west, and there is a steady blow in the stratosphere. Who is sucking and blowing it alternately? Who has nothing to do and is shaking it about like this?
Chuangtse does not answer the questions directly, but in the following paragraph speaks of these operations of nature in a description of what he calls the heavenly Tse-jan, lit. “self-so,” ”self-formed,” “‘that which is so by Itself.”
THE IMITATION OF TAO which ends with a quotation from an old sacred song of Yu-yen (Shen-nung')
.
''You listen and cannot hear Its voice, you look and cannot see its form. It fills the whole universe and encompasses the six points of space. You want to listen to it, and yet there is no point of
Contact. See also the selection 6.i, 'The Silent, Beautiful
Universe” "The heaven cannot help being high, the earth cannot
help being wide. The sun and the moon cannot help going around, and all things of the creation cannot help but live and grow. Perhaps this is Tao.See the context in 4.1. "Existing before the heaven and earth, it is not regarded as long ago, being older than the primeval beginnings, it is not regarded as old.'
25 2 TAO IS NAMED "GREAT.' THE ETERNAL CYCLES.
"Can you then just call it Tao?” asked Little Knowledge."No, replied Taikung Tiao. 'We speak of The myriad things' of the creation, although we know that there are more than a myriad of them. Because the number is so great, we just call it 'myriad.' The heaven and earth are the great in form. The yin and yang are the great in force. Tao is great in both. We merely give it the name "Great” because of its greatness. But with a given name,
it should not be compared with the names for other things. One cannot go on and argue that Tao is something by that name, as we say that dogs and horses are animals by those names. For that would be far off the mark.” 'Within the four points of the compass and above and how do the myriad things take their rise?” asked Little Knowledge. 'The yin and the yang principles act on one another, reflect one another and keep one another in place. The four seasons follow one another in succession, interrelated in their coming and going. Hence arise likes and
dislikes, and choices and preferences.
The male and the female mate and the race is continued. Peace and chaos follow one another; fortune breeds misfortune and vice versa. The slow and the quick rub against each other and things are formed and disperse. These are some of the things that we can say about material things and some of the subtle pnnciples that we can put down. All order is bom of a principle, and all rise and decay are interrelated. When something reaches a limit, then it reverses its direction; when the end is reached, the beginning begins. This is all that is evidenced by the material world, all that we know and all that we can say. And after all, our knowledge does not extend beyond the material universe. He who observes the working of Tao does not try to follow a thing to its very end, nor trace it to its very source. There all discussion ends.' (7:4)
25.3. COMPIETE, ENTIRE AND ALL. The three. Complete, Entire and All differ in name, but are the same in reality. They all indicate the One. Once they roamed about together in the Palace of Nowhere. Did they get together to discuss things and never come to an end? Did they go about doing nothing together, and remain mellow and quiet, and indifferent and free? Did they
get along well and spend their idle hours together? Free and unfettered is my mind, it reaches out and does not know where it reaches, it returns and does not know where it stops. My mind goes back and forth and does not know where it all ends. It loiters in the sphere of the Great Void, where the great Sage enters and does not know where it leads to. To realize that
matter is matter is to reach the infinite with matter. Where matter is finite, it is the limitations of finite matter. The limit of the limitless is the limitlessness of the limited. To take the phenomena of rise and fall, growth and decay, it does not regard rise and fall as rise and fall, and it does not regard growth and decay as growth and decay. It does not regard beginning and
end as beginning and end. It does not regard formation and dispersion as formation and dispersion. (6:3)[/i][/hide]
The mysticism of some X thought to predate the universe: A perfect koanic point of focus to still the mind.
As it says in Verse 4, it predates God.
I saw that. Kind of a hyperabstract Predator. Perfect mystical koanic focus point.
Quoting ZzzoneiroCosm
I'm not sure what you mean when you say "hyperabstract," "mystical," or "kaonic." If you mean it isn't realistic, then I disagree. I've always said that Taoism is completely consistent with what we know scientifically about the universe.
We would have to take a look, then, at your definition of the universe.
When I think of the expression "the universe," I take it to refer to that which exists. So if the Tao exists, to my lights it's part of the universe.
To say it predates the universe is, to my view, to deploy a paradoxical trope aiming at a koanic pscyhical stillness. (The kind of pscyhical stillness one might achieve via the contemplation of a koan.)
If by the universe you mean the "ten thousand things," then I think there's some wiggle room.
As I see it, the fact that the Tao does not exist is one of the most important insights of the Tao Te Ching.
Verse 1
[i]Therefore, by the Everlasting (ch'ang) Non-Being (wu),
We desire (yü) to observe (kuan) its hidden mystery (miao);
By the Everlasting (ch'ang) Being (yu),
We desire (yü) to observe the manifestations (chiao).
These two issue from the same origin,[/i]
Verse 2
Therefore being and non-being give rise to each other,
Verse 40
[i]Returning (fan) is the movement (tung) of Tao.
Weak (jo) is the functioning (yung) of Tao.
Ten thousand things under heaven are born of being (yu).
Being is born of non-being (wu).[/i]
On the other hand:
Verse 4
[i]Tao is a whirling emptiness (ch'ung),
Yet (erh) in use (yung) is inexhaustible (ying).
Fathomless (yuan),
It seems to be the ancestor (tsung) of ten thousand beings.
It blunts the sharp,
Unties the entangled,
Harmonizes the bright,
Mixes the dust.
Dark (chan),
It seems perhaps to exist (ts'un).[/i]
Verse 25
[i]There was something nebulous existing (yu wu hun ch'eng),
Born before heaven and earth.
Silent, empty,[/i]
I can only understand this as a deployment of paradoxical language designed to assist the mind into a state of contemplative stillness.
It works admirably in that capacity, and I admire the poet's courage and insight.
But as a philosopher, to say X both exists and does not exist is to say nothing at all about X. He might as well have said Mu.
What connection do you see between science and a Tao that exists and does not exist? Are you thinking of a kind of quantum flux? If so, that's fine by me. But, as I understand it, no one really understands quantum mechanics - and I certainly don't. So I prefer to bracket QM in the manner of Husserl's epoche, or Sextus Empiricus' ataraxical counterpoise.
You and I have a different understanding.
Quoting ZzzoneiroCosm
Quantum mechanics is science. The Tao is metaphysics. Any similarity is metaphorical.
Science is one of the ways people bring things into existence by naming them. Science is all about naming.
I agree we disagree. No problem.
To my view, in light of the age-old controversy surrounding the Tao, the Tao must in some sense exist. Just not in the manner of the "ten thousand things."
If the Tao has no sort of existence at all - why would we bother about it?
So to my lights, the Tao certainly exists - namely, as a paradoxical poetic abstraction designed by the poet to inspire a contemplative stillness.
And by my lights, you've missed the point. Nuff said. You can have the last word.
[quote=Lao Tzu"]It seems perhaps to exist...It existed before the beginning...Its ??????? existed before God was."[/quote]
I had another thought: In a number of translations, the Tao is said to exist, to perhaps exist, to seem to exist, to perhaps seem to exist. I take that to mean its existential status is uncertain. So the importance you attach to the non-existence of the Tao seems unwarranted. To say "the Tao does not exist" is to pin it down in a way perhaps anti-thetical to the spirit of the text.
No problem if you'd prefer not to continue the exchange. Just a thought. Cheers. :smile:
In my post, I included quotes that seem to contradict my position to acknowledge the ambiguity. Ambiguity is not the same as uncertainty.
Not the same: but ambiguity creates uncertainty.
Given that Tao is the name for the unnamable, the ambiguity of does exist vs. doesn't exist isn't that confusing. Is it important that the Tao is unnamable? Or is it also a poetic abstraction to promote contemplation?
It could go either way, as I see it. It serves admirably as the latter. Its unnamability allows it some form of existence as originary X.
My mind bounces back and forth between the two in an agreeable way. Again: to read the Tao Te Ching is to come into contact with a truly brilliant mind. An uncanny brilliance.
I don't disagree with this. I have said before that the true sign of intelligence is the ability to hold two apparently contradictory ideas in your mind at the same time. Wave/particle. Free will/determinism. Candy mint/breath mint. Less filling/tastes great.
The value of ataraxia.
It's a bit hard to talk about this without understanding the context. Have you read the Tao Te Ching or any of the earlier posts in this thread. Do you have any experience with...
Well, it seems @Frankly has already been banned.
:snicker:
Frankly was too frank!
Quoting Amity