Translation

True speech isn’t beautiful
Beautiful speech isn’t true.
Expertise doesn’t debate.
Debate isn’t expertise.
Knowing isn’t wealth
Wealth doesn’t know.
The holy person doesn’t accumulate.
Already, considers people’s personal healing his own.
Already, so as to support people’s personal healing more.
Nature’s way benefits, and yet not harms.
The holy person’s way acts, and yet not contends.

true (trust; word) speech (word) not beautiful (pretty; good).

beautiful (pretty; good) speech (word) not true (trust; word).

good (kind; be expert in; be adept in) not argue (dispute; debate).

argue (dispute; debate) not good (kind; be expert in; be adept in).

know (realize; be aware of) not rich (abundant; plentiful; win; gain).

rich (abundant; plentiful; win; gain) not know (realize; be aware of).

sage (saint; holy; sacred) person not amass (store up; accumulate).

already (since; as) think (consider) people oneself (personal) heal (recover; become; well; better) have (exist).

already (since; as) use (take; because of; so as to <conj.> and) give (support; <conj.> and) people oneself (personal) heal (recover; become; well; better) more (excessive).

sky (heaven; weather; nature) of way sharp (benefit, advantage, profit) <conj.> and (yet, but) not evil (harm; destructive).

sage (wise man) of way do (act; serve as; be, mean; support) <conj.> and (yet, but)not contend (argue).

Original

信言不美。
美言不信。
善者不辩。
辩者不善。
知者不博。
博者不知。
圣人不积。
既以为人己愈有。
既以与人己愈多。
天之道利而不害。
圣人之道为而不争。

Commentary, October 2011

I have to wonder what kind of words could qualify as “truthful words”? True speech would be that which presents the whole picture, both sides of the coin, the pros and cons. Words that only voice what we want to hear, and avoid voicing what we fear or dislike would be less true.

Hearing words we want to hear easily persuades us. Skilled politicians and salesmen know and use this hoodwink deftly. This also is what makes truth so illusive. Not that it is rare or hidden; truth is omnipresent. It just isn’t what we want to perceive – it’s not beautiful enough. True truth lacks contrast. Perhaps that is an odd thing to say; let’s take a closer look: Chapter 2 pries into this when it says, The whole world recognizes the beautiful as the beautiful, yet this is only the ugly; the whole world recognizes the good as the good, yet this is only the bad.

Beautiful and good are only cognitively perceptible in contrast to an awareness of ugliness and bad. Such perceptions are simply reflections of what we like and dislike; of what we want and don’t want; of what we are attracted towards and from which repelled. It is simple neurology, a biological hoodwink—a bio-hoodwink, as I like to call it. The same applies to truth vs. false doesn’t it? True truth must transcend the contrast of opposites. (Herein lies the benefit of the teaching that uses no words.)

So now, ask yourself: is there good or bad in nature? Does nature play favorites; does nature love some things more than other things? In nature’s book, are some things more beautiful than other things? In my view, the answer is a resounding no. Thus, if speech is to reflect that which is naturally so, it can’t be both beautiful and true. I hate to resort to the word transcendent, but here I must… One requirement of true truth, in the transcendent sense of the word, is impartiality. How can any perception that pulls you in (beauty) or push you away (ugly) be transcendently true?

“The sage does not hoard”
In thinking over “The sage does not hoard”, I reflect back upon times I’ve hoarded. Really though, accumulate is a better description; it is less pejorative. Also correlated to accumulate is holding on, clinging, seeking, grasping. While never really hoarding stuff, I sure sought after and clung to what I felt precious at the time. I don’t do this much any more. Also, I now recognize the obvious—seeking after or clinging to things (or ideas) are simply symptoms of that for which I feel or felt deficient. What has changed? I simply feel an approaching enough now. Indeed, why would anyone seek that for which he or she felt enough? They would not. So, what did I feel lacking?

In general, I lacked a deep enough sense of life-meaning. Looking back, I can see how powerfully that drove what I did. I clung to what promised me life-meaning at the time. For example, while living in Singapore, I had an English girlfriend who worked at the Changi Air Base. We’d ride the bus from Singapore to the base on Sunday night. I clung to the last moments we’d share before taking the bus back alone to Singapore. I really was dependent on that relationship for life-meaning, and so I clung to it. Over time, I realized the poverty of this approach… poverty because I felt incomplete. That is why we say, “He who knows contentment is rich“, and similarly, wealth doesn’t know contentment. In fact, wealth can be very problematic as Jesus alluded to when he said, “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God”.

We put many of our happiness eggs in the money basket despite it being very easy to understand that money does not buy happiness. Not only does money not buy happiness, it easily detracts from happiness. On the other hand, money does buy us comfort and security! Then the bio-hoodwink lures us in by equating happiness with more comfort and security. Naturally, this linkage would be largely true in wilderness circumstances. The human ability to circumvent natural boundaries allows technological innovations to increase comfort and security exponentially. Evolution didn’t ‘plan’ on that. Without natural limits, increasing comfort and security leads to physiological and psychological imbalance, and overall happiness actually decreases. We become neurotic and fall into a vicious cycle: decreasing contentment drives us to pursue comfort and security, which creates more imbalances, which makes us even less happy. The bio-hoodwink works in mysterious ways. Well, perhaps not so mysterious once you are willing to see life straightforwardly. In my view, an ongoing awareness of these dynamics can actually help moderate them… if you so desire, and that, as we know, is the hitch!

When is enough, enough?
One of the main errors we make in society is thinking we can change life from the outside in. Meaning for example, we think that we can chose to be less selfish—more giving. A true sense of giving is the natural result of feeling enough. Without that root, any ostensible giving correlates more to rites, rectitude and benevolence. Yes, this can help glue the fabric of society, but unintended consequences always ensue. It is messy, but then that’s life. I suppose this all ties in with the ‘wandering mind is unhappy mind‘. Accumulating, or simply holding on, focuses the mind (emotions actually) and supplies us with a sense of self-meaning. Of course, Buddha pointed that out in his second truth, “the illusion of self originates and manifests itself in a cleaving to things”.

Healing the Imbalance
Nature’s way benefits, and yet not harms. The holy person’s way acts, and yet not contends. Normally, benefit accrued for one comes at a loss for another. Likewise, life’s actions normally involve contending with opposing forces. To have stopped in time, before harm or contending occurs is a very fine line. Nature has no difficulty maintaining the impartiality this requires. Unlike non-thinking animals, we haul around a personal agenda (too many desires) and often end up crossing that balance line. We seek healing from the difficulties caused by this imbalance. When you begin to feel that this is our common cause, considers people’s personal healing his own begins to happen naturally. This is why the way has none of the prescribed morality found in all other religions. Morality is an ideal easily touted, impossible to practice; the highest virtue is a reality hard to describe, easy to practice—unavoidable even—once you see that of which you would rather otherwise remain ignorant.

Having bestowed all he has on others, he has yet more; Having given all he has to others, he is richer still clearly deviates somewhat from the original, in my view, in order to promote a pseudo virtuous moral ideal. Again, much of civilization relies on such ideals to hold together large populations. The fear is that otherwise society would break apart into a barbaric every-man-for-himself chaos. It just may be that we are far more barbaric (nukes, pollution, famine and war) in our ostentatious morality than if we lived more in tune with our selves as we truly are rather than as we wish we were—honesty is the best policy.