DailyTao
Tao Te Ching:What is a good man but a bad man’s teacher? What is a bad man but a good man’s job?
This is a comment from Stephen Mitchell on this passage:
"The teaching of the Tao Te Ching is moral in the deepest sense. Unencumbered by any concept of sin, the Master doesn’t see evil as a force to resist, but simply as an opaqueness, a state of self-absorption which is in disharmony with the universal process,"
Comments (61)
I'm glad you started this thread. I love the Tao Te Ching. I've read several versions, and like Mitchell's best. I've read that some think his version is too Americanized and lacks credibility. Well, I'm American after all. All I know is that the first time I read it, I heard and felt a "ding" of recognition. The TTC has various different types of lesson to teach:
As for the quoted text - I find some of Lao Tzu's ethical verses a bit contradictory. Elsewhere he talks about non-action, about accepting things and people as they are. Here he talks about good and bad men and a good man's role in changing the bad one. I guess in that context, I don't find Mitchell's commentary for this verse very convincing.
Have you ever been around a person who was like a light in the darkness? I had that experience once. I learned something from him even though I dont think he was aware of my existence. And he definitely wasn't some recognized holyman. He was just a regular guy.
Me too! She was, until recently :cry:, our greatest living author, in my not-very-humble opinion. I describe myself, in religious terms, as a Gaian Daoist. The Daoist bit stems from my admiration for Daoism, the TTC, and (if I'm honest) Ursula LeGuin's wonderful comments and commentary in her translation.
I never knew Le Guin had a translation. I've been reading science fiction for 55 years, but I never read much of hers. Too gentle and lyrical for me. That might be just right for TTC. I'll put it on my list.
Quoting frank
No, I've never really had someone I looked up to spiritually. I do have two friends whose way of looking at things is so different from mine, so wise, that I've learned a lot from them.
Laozi is talking about the duty of what's called a "ren":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren_(Confucianism)
It's not specifically a confucian term since the distinction between a "high minded man" and a "low minded man" can already be found in the "I Ching".
Anyway, a better translation would be:
"What is a high minded man but a low minded man’s teacher? What is a low minded man but a high minded man’s job?"
The problem with defining daoism in terms of "good" and "bad" is that daoists don't make such a distinction at all. It's just not part of the cosmology and as such a non-issue. Not being familiar with said cosmology makes daoism a tough nut to crack, though. What Laozi actually is talking about is how the relationship between a high minded man and a low minded man is like the relationship between "Ch'ien" and "K'un":
"[i]Heaven is lofty and honourable; earth is low. Ch'ien and K'un were determined in accordance with this. Things low and high appear displayed in a similar relation; the noble and the mean had their places assigned accordingly. Movement and rest are the regular qualities of their respective subjects. Hence comes the definite distinction of the lines as the strong and the weak.
Affairs are arranged together according to their tendencies, and things are divided according to their classes. Hence were produced what is good and what is evil.
In the heavens there are the figures there completed, and on the earth there are the bodies there formed. Corresponding to them were the changes and transformations exhibited in the "I Ching".[/i]"
-"Ta Chuan", section 1, ch. 1.
Regarding the Stephen Mitchell comment:
"The teaching of the Tao Te Ching is moral in the deepest sense. Unencumbered by any concept of sin, the Master doesn’t see evil as a force to resist, but simply as an opaqueness, a state of self-absorption which is in disharmony with the universal process,"
It's funny how he first states that daoism is "unencumbered by any concept of sin", but then goes on to talk about how "the master doesn't see evil...", casting his analysis right back into a western paradigm again. Acting "good" or "not acting bad" isn't the point. Neither is acting in accord with the dao or not.
"[i]Heaven and earth do not act from (the impulse of) any wish to be benevolent; they deal with all things as the dogs of grass are dealt with. The sages do not act from (any wish to be) benevolent; they deal with the people as the dogs of grass are dealt with.
May not the space between heaven and earth be compared to a bellows?'Tis emptied, yet it loses not its power; 'Tis moved again, and sends forth air the more.
Much speech to swift exhaustion lead we see;
Your inner being guard, and keep it free.[/i]"
-"Daodejing", ch. 5, Legge translation.
So, what is the point? Well:
"[i]Ch'ien, heaven is above; Chên, movement, is below. The lower trigram Chên is under the influence of the strong line it has received form above, from heaven. When, in accord with this, movement follows the law of heaven, man is innocent and without guile. His mind is natural and true, unshadowed by reflection or ulterior designs. For wherever conscious purpose is to be seen, there the truth and innocence of nature have been lost.
Nature that is not directed by the spirit is not true but degenerate nature. Starting out with the idea of the natural, the train of thought in part goes somewhat further and thus the hexagram includes also the idea of the fundamental or unexpected.[/i]"
-"I Ching" Wilhelm translation, hexagram 25.
Cool. This isn't really an anti-western outlook, though. It's Neoplatonic, and so built into the foundation of Christianity. Is this insight any less covered over in China than it is in Italy?
The tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.
The name that can be named is not the eternal Name.
The unnamable is the eternally real.
Naming is the origin of all particular things.
Free from desire, you realize the mystery.
Caught in desire, you see only the manifestations. Yet mystery and manifestations arise from the same source.
This source is called darkness.
Darkness within darkness.
The gateway to all understanding.
There is a free recorded version of the Tao Te Ching on Librivox.org. They have thousands of free recorded books. I'm listening to William James "Pragmatism" now. The TTC is the Legge translation. The reader is not a professional, but he has a clear, expressive voice. I haven't listened to much of it yet.
It is a 81-place tie for which is my fav chapter. Just kidding! :wink: it depends on the day and season, the situation, the mood.
Like a well-stocked toolbox, each chapter and verse perform a useful function. Some more or less specific, but all clear and brilliant yet mysterious. Mysterious and deep, but one senses the desire to share deep truths as directly as possible. So concise but still poetic, not a word wasted. It is a recipe book for life. Any fault in my actions results from a failure to understand or follow the Tao. But thankfully, it forgives and is ready with a helping hand.
Chapter 13 as translated by Mitchell is a favorite. It addresses the existential questions. Who am I? What is not I? What is good for this being called I?
[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, your 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]
:up: Wow, thanks! Hadn’t heard of that site. And free is good. Bookmarked. :smile:
Sometimes I think listening to spoken words, be it poetry, stories, or history, taps into something primal within us. The million years of humanity being an oral culture before the invention of writing. Stories of the world and the gods told around a fire. Movies, for better or worse, may serve that function for us now. :fire:
I think that's what I was talking about when I said there was a contradiction.
What is the relationship between the Tao Te Ching and the I Ching?
After I'd read it a few times, this became my favorite verse. I think it summarizes everything, especially, for me, the ontological aspect. Where Mitchell says "all particular things" other versions say "the 10,000 things," which I love.
I always say about Eastern philosophies - it's all a joke. Enlightenment means getting the joke. I use this verse as an example. I think Mitchell even says it - 81 verses telling about something that can't be told.
Another of my favorites, and exactly, completely right. It has meant a lot to me personally. Getting older, it means more and more as years pass. I'm much better getting rid of the hopes than fears.
[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.
If you want to take something,
you must first allow it to be given.[/i]
This is a verse that dinged loudly for me the first time I read it. When I'm dealing with something difficult personally - fear, hurt, anger, resentment - I come back to it over and over. It makes me think of another of my favorite aphorisms. Source unknown.
You can get anything you want. You just have to stop wanting it.
That's so true. If you're starting an aquarium you have to let the bacteria and algae bloom. The populations will collapse on their own into a living balance. People who try to fight the blooms inevitably set the stage for new blooms over and over.
:up:
It and the "Shangshu" are fundamental texts in classical Chinese philosophy. Many treatises in classical Chinese thought assume a familiarity with them; they dictated the vocabulary of the time, at least, in literary circles.
-Deep Thoughts about Hawaii
I never really had the inclination before and I don't know why. I really enjoyed it.
Although, as I said in a previous post, I have downloaded a spoken word version, I've never actually heard the Tao te Ching anywhere but in my head. I guess it's about time.
The thing that has struck me the most in the TTC is the concept of the Tao (yes, yes, I know) as an alternative to the concept of objective reality. It has lead me to believe that thinking of reality as a seamless interaction between what's inside me and what's outside me is the most enlightening, least misleading way of seeing things. And by "seamless interaction" I mean they are one thing, completely inseparable.
Wow, that’s great to hear! :smile: :hearts: Whenever I mention the TTC here or elsewhere, I always hope it will make someone curious about it, or remind them if they haven’t read it in a while. All while trying to avoid annoying the heck out of people by knocking on their door and handing out pamphlets about the Tao. :blush:
Haha. Well, to be fair I don't think I would have liked it at another point in my life. Like a lot of spiritual literature you have to already sort of be in the right frame of mind or at least thirsty for it before it can work its magic. There was one verse that described me well --
Immediately upon hearing it I was like "Well, I was a foolish man, and now I'd say I'm an average man"
As I said, I am listening to "Pragmatism" right now. I thought it might be difficult to really dig in, but I've been surprised how how natural it is.
Well, I'd like to say I am a superior man, but it's clear I'll never get above average.
is like frying a small fish.
You spoil it with too much poking.
Center your country in the Tao
and evil will have no power.
Not that it isn't there,
but you'll be able to step out of its way.
Give evil nothing to oppose
and it will disappear by itself.
- chapter 60. Translated by Stephen Mitchell.
I'm ambivalent about the political verses. Telling someone how to govern seems a little inconsistent. Why would a person who follows the Tao want to rule a country?
Quoting 0 thru 9
Sometimes I get this. We make our enemies by making them enemies. On the other hand, isn't it necessary to fight back at some point?
Thems fightin’ words! En guardè! :nerd: But seriously, I would agree that there is a time to fight. Personally, I admire the instincts of animals, who mostly run away if possible, before considering fighting. Barking or growling is also an option. I have almost stepped on skunks in the dark several times, and they ran off without even spraying me. (Thank goodness)
Quoting T Clark
Maybe mentally replace “governing a country” with “managing your business”? (BTW, when quoting me here it looks like I am the author of the quotes. I wish!)
Just my two penny-worth. :smile:
"Governing a great state is like cooking small fish.
Let the kingdom be governed according to the Tao, and the manes of
the departed will not manifest their spiritual energy. It is not that
those manes have not that spiritual energy, but it will not be
employed to hurt men. It is not that it could not hurt men, but
neither does the ruling sage hurt them.
When these two do not injuriously affect each other, their good
influences converge in the virtue (of the Tao)."
Manes? Beards? legacy? Perhaps it is the residue of resentment from old battles, old wrongs that is being considered. To oppose it is to reawaken it. Or as we philistines have it, 'don't pick your scabs.'
Which one of us is evil?
and people will be a hundred times happier.
Throw away morality and justice,
and people will do the right thing.
Throw away industry and profit,
and there won’t be any thieves.
If these three aren’t enough,
just stay at the center of the circle
and let all things take their course.
TTC 19
Dang, that’s a good one. Just let it go. If it’s there and real, it’s not going anywhere. Less is more.
But I’ve experienced how one can feel drowned out by the noise, lost in the crowd. So you amp it up, try to get louder and brighter. Who can be “on” all the time without feeling drained? Another verse says to dim your brightness, and to wear your gold and jewels under common clothing.
Maybe... not sure. Could you please expand on that a little?
Some people feed off of being the center and others become exhausted from doing it. I get exhausted and just sit there silently while my friends talk. In the process, I become the center of attention because I'm silent. Sometimes.
What are you doing when you become central?
:up: Thanks for the reply (and the attention). I see what you mean now. Boy, that’s a big subject. Probably could be a separate thread eventually. On attention and feedback, and our needs. You’ve probably heard the saying “where attention goes, energy flows”. That kind of sums it up, in general.
Picture a little baby. Even with its physical needs temporarily met (hunger, diaper, sleep) that baby is most likely ravenous for attention. Maybe quiet attention or goofy attention, etc, but attention nonetheless. Some of that might be immaturity, but I think a good deal of it is human nature. Maybe we need less as adults, but it is safe to assume that there is a baseline need for response and feedback. Both verbal and physical.
And this is not necessarily insecurity and neediness. One sees that animals, plants, and even inanimate things feed off of attention. The floor needs sweeping and the clutter benefits from sorting. Attention being the flow of energy, as in the practice of feng shui. (I’m still working on that clutter thing! Starting with the mental clutter :smile: )
To play one’s part in the conversation, in the back-and-forth of life is almost a musical skill. Timing and rhythm, melody and harmony, verse and chorus. The most enjoyable conversations are like a jazz performance, with both soloing and group effort. When the vibration is high, everyone feels good. Even while sitting there quietly.
Your verse always makes me think of this one (80):
[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]
Which I find provocative, but I'm not sure if I buy it. So, when I gain enlightenment I won't be able to go on vacation or use a vacuum cleaner anymore? I won't be interested in how other people live and think?
Like recognition for Hegel? Is there a master slave aspect? Maybe not necessarily in a negative way?
Quoting 0 thru 9
Requiring generosity?
I was sitting in a coffee shop in the town where I live. A group of people came in including and American family with husband, wife, and two teenage girls and an Italian family with husband, wife, and 4 year old girl. Sophia. Sofia spent the whole time marching around an empty table very seriously. Very industriously. Studiously. Really marching - stomp, stomp, stomp. Paying close attention. If something got in her way, she would step back, look at it, move it, and then start marching again. Every five minutes or so, she would go over to her mother. Her mother would whisper something to her. Touch her hair. 10 seconds later Sophia was back marching.
What a neat little girl. I wonder what she'll be like when she's 30. She was out on an adventure by herself, but every so often she had to go back to the safe place to remind herself that she wasn't alone. I think that's true of children in general. They learn from their parent's attention that the world cares about them. That they belong here. As they get older, they need to be reminded less often because it gets built into who they are.
To me, that is what attention is for. It reminds us the world cares about us, is interested in us. We belong here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKe-XREy95w&t=0s&index=2&list=PLHcd6JRba7QueJHpCTUC1Wc9NnFvpRcV-
Sorry, not sure what you were saying here. Not too familiar with Hegel. Possibly elaborate?
Quoting frank
Definitely. But I imagine it is possible to get more out of it than what is given. But everyone involved has to be contributing. Anyone holding out is like a knot in the garden hose, restricting the flow.
Good stuff, thanks for sharing it. The particular situation and person mirrors the universal forms, one could say.
My understanding isnt deep. It's like this.
A sense of self could be a by-product of receiving attention. Attention is like food to a developing ego. An ego that doesn't get a normal amount of attention becomes... what?
Narcissistic. Trying to parent itself, attending to itself, it becomes both hyper-sensitive and vacuous. Ever-demanding, and ever dissatisfied when it gets what it demands, because while has to attend to its own needs, it not only cannot fulfil them, it cannot even properly identify them.
:up: Ok, I see what you were referring to. Your food analogy is near perfect. The psyche/ego doesn’t simply enjoy attention or energy or feedback, it radically needs it and is constructed by it. Just as the body uses food as fuel, but is also built from food. Like a starving person eating tree bark or insects, sometimes you just take what you can get. @unenlightened‘s description of the pathology is it, in a nutshell. He probably described the angst or struggle of the greater majority of individuals.
And like with many things in life, there is some kind of ideal floating balance point, some possible “golden mean”. Too much attention, pressure, expectations, and praise can be damaging, though maybe not in exactly the same way as deprivation. (More or less, the stage-parent phenomenon). The person with a deficiency or toxic excess of attention early in life may need to deal with it eventually. Possibly in a crisis, depression, or breakdown scenario like has been the topic of several threads, and which was discussed in this post. One way or another, willingly or not, the need or imbalance will rise from the subconscious and demand attention and resolution. This seems to be approaching the territory of Carl Jung and Joseph Campbell perhaps.
Ok. I'd rather not be overly insane. Just averagely.
To take it back to the Tao te Ching in Verse 30:
[i]Because he believes in himself,
he doesn't try to convince others.
Because he is content with himself,
he doesn't need others' approval.
Because he accepts himself,
the whole world accepts him.[/i]
What difference between yes and no?
What difference between success and failure?
Must you value what others value, avoid what others avoid?
How ridiculous!
From 20. I wonder how the rhythm of it feels in Chinese.
Fame or integrity: which is more important?
Money or happiness: which is more valuable?
Success or failure: which is more destructive?
If you look to others for fulfillment, you will never truly be fulfilled.
If your happiness depends on money, you will never be happy with yourself.
Be content with what you have; rejoice in the way things are.
When you realize there is nothing lacking, the whole world belongs to you.
Quoting T Clark
I think when you're enlightened you get the right perspective.
Quoting T Clark
They realize machines do not do any work. Rather, humans use them to work more efficiently, instead of replacing human labour.
Quoting T Clark
Quoting T Clark
When enlightened, they realize that the grass is neither greener nor browner on the other side; and that what they would seek elsewhere can be easier found within their encompass. That is, they develop the proper appreciation for life and its providence.
"The higher the ideals, the lower the results."
Good for us whiners to remember.