Monthly Chapter-62

The way of all things is profound and difficult to understand.
Of the perfect person, it is precious; of the imperfect person, it is protective.
Beautiful speech can bring worldly honor.
Beautiful behavior can augment people.
For people imperfect, why abandon them?
Hence, the son of heaven establishes three commonalities,
Even though surrounded by jade and presented with horses,
Not equal to receiving the way.
Of old, why was this way so valued?
Was it not said that by using it one got what one sought.
By using it, one avoids the evils of hardship.
Hence, all under heaven value it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Limits: Translations, even my nearly literal one above, invariably lose some of the ancient ‘original intention’ due to the modern cultural context we bring to our language’s words… our ‘education’. Studying the Word-for-Word translation of the Chinese character’s many synonym-like meanings helps mitigate this. (Click graphic at right for on-line Word-for-Word.)

Third Pass: Chapter of the Month 12/10/2014

Archive: Characters and past commentary

Notes:

I see two minor changes necessary. First, Line 5 said, “For people not good, why abandon them?“. The characters for ‘not good‘ are bù shàn (不善). Taken together bùshàn does mean: bad; ill; not good at. This is how I translated it, so what is the problem? The issue is two fold. The thinking mind tends to be overly, albeit naturally, polar in its outlook: good vs. bad; on vs. off; right vs. wrong; love vs. hate, etc. This ‘black and white’ response is instinctive, no doubt. I mean, even the neurons function this way, either ‘on’ or ‘off’. The ‘way’ (Dao, Tao) is neither on nor off, but much more like the spooky quantum behavior of Schrödinger’s cat — both on and off, alive and dead… depending.

The character for ‘good’ (shàn 善) has broader meanings beyond good. Shàn (善): good; satisfactory; make a success of; perfect; kind; friendly; be good at; be expert in; be adept in; properly; be apt to. This character appears in lines 1 and 2, and there I used ‘perfect’.  Admittedly, the idea of perfect also pushes us into an idealistic corner, but words can take us only so far past the shadows of truth. After that, we are on our own.

Anyway, for the sake of consistency, I swapped ‘not good’ out for ‘imperfect’. I do feel perfect vs. imperfect is a lot less loaded than ‘good’ vs. ‘bad’ (or worse, ‘evil’).

Next, I dropped (emperor) from line 6. True, Son of Heaven was the emperor, but this idea back then carried more weight. We regard emperor as serving earlier archaic social systems. We don’t see it in the context of its times. Then, emperor was God, which puts it outside common experience. Simply leaving it as Son of Heaven, without historical reference, helps boost its mystery.

Reflections:

The last few lines sums up the all-embracing characteristic of the ‘way’ as compare to the judgmental characteristic of humanity. It is not that we ‘shouldn’t be’ judgmental. After all, passing judgment on others is simply an instinctive social response common to all tribal mammals… and non-mammals as well. Making cognitive mountains out of instinctive molehills is our problem, and thinking without knowing that we don’t know is the cause: Realizing I don’t’ know is better; not knowing this knowing is disease

Not equal to receiving the way.
Of old, why was this way so valued?
Was it not said that by using it one got what one sought.
By using it, one avoids the evils of hardship.
Hence, all under heaven value it.

Not equal to receiving the way: When I am at peace, anyone dealing with me receives the way, de facto. Nothing we offer equals this ‘gift’, and it certainly is a win-win.

Got what one sought: Taken out of context of the Tao Te Ching as a whole, this can seem to say you’ll get what you want if you play your Taoist cards right.

The thing to keep in mind is what lies behind our quests in life. What do we hope to find at the end of our seeking when we have what we long sought after? Simply put, peace and contentment are the pot of gold at the end or this rainbow of hope. The bio-hoodwink lies in the illusion that we will find contentment if we get what we seek. We easily fail to realize that such success is soon replaced by another goal, another thirst to quench. Here now is some context on the issue of seeking (desire, want, sought after).

Not to catch sight of what suits desire, enables people’s heart to avoid confusion.

See simply, embrace the plain, and have few personal desires.

With desire choosing anything, of doing I see no satisfied end.

Always without desire, befits the name small.

 Everything will self transform.
Transform yet desire rises;
Press it down using nameless simplicity.
Of nameless simplicity, man also supports without desire.
No desire and still, all under heaven will settle themselves.

I am without desire and the people simplify themselves.

Taking this, the wise person desires non desire,

Such absence of desire appears able and virtuous – how odd!

By using it, one avoids the evils of hardship: Look around and see if you can find any ‘evil’ in nature. A mother __(prey)__ having its babies ‘kidnapped and eated’ by another animal __(predator)__ is grizzly to watch, especially when we project our own self-interest into the event. Grizzly but not, we know, evil. Only human behavior seems able to come across as evil.

Unlike other animals, when we experience hardship, we have a nearly automatic response of singling out someone or something to blame. Their ‘evil’ action is messing with our ideal expectations of what ‘should be’. Of course, it is completely natural to feel we are being messed with, and to do all we can to avoid it. Any animals would feel and do the same. Only when we think, and think that we know, do the evils of hardship enter the picture.