Monthly Chapter: 5

The universe is not benevolent,
. . . . and all things serve as grass dogs (‘sacrificial lambs’).
The wise person is not benevolent,
. . . . and the people serve as grass dogs.
Is not the space between heaven and earth like a bag?
Empty yet doesn’t submit,
. . . . moves yet recovers from all its coming and going.
More speech counts as exceptionally limited;
. . . . not in accord with keeping to the middle.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Limits: Translations, even the nearly literal one above, lose some of the original meaning due to the cultural context of contemporary words. Studying the numerous synonym-like meanings of the Chinese characters in the Word-for-Word translation mitigates this. (Click graphic at right for on-line Word-for-Word.)

Third Pass: Chapter of the Month 12/30/2016

Chinese character translation and commentary archive

Corrections?

None this time

Reflections:

The universe is not benevolent, and all things serve as grass dogs (‘sacrificial lambs’).
The wise person is not benevolent, and the people serve as grass dogs.

The first question I’d ask is this: Does the universe have free will? Does it have intention; does it choose? That is a silly question, unless you believe in a God as being master of the universe. It still feels like a silly question. So, I assume the universe doesn’t have free will, intention, or choose what it wants.

If the universe has no free will, what does that say about the wise person? This chapter tells me that the wise person shares the same ‘universal nature’ as the universe, at least to the degree humanly possible. The universe and the wise person are impartial. Well, the universe is anyway. The wise person is as long as his self-interest doesn’t bias him. That leaves us to decide what free will, intention, and choice are, and what there role is. As I see it, free will ⁽¹⁾ is merely a projected ideal of one’s self-interest… as is benevolence. Intention is the name of the game — it is either universal and impartial ⁽²⁾ or personal and biased.

Chapter 49 hints, The wise person is without ordinary intention. Takes the common people’s intention as his intention. I actually feel the ‘common people’ are also sage-like without ordinary intention, until their personal agenda pulls them back into their ordinary intention. That occurs when stirring emotions bias intention — plain and simple. That is just normal human nature. The trick I find is to at least be aware of and acknowledge whenever my emotions stir and bias becomes inevitable. Then, I can be both wise and common, so to speak. 😉

One final point in this idea that the wise person is not benevolent: It is important to know that the Tao Te Ching is not prescriptive; it is descriptive. Nevertheless, because we are always on the lookout for guidance, it is easy to misinterpret this, and feel it is a prescription for increasing wisdom, i.e., if you want to be a wise person, you ‘should’ try to be less benevolent. Such misinterpretation easily occurs when we need to control life and believe we have free choice, free will.

The highest benevolence is without benevolence

The Tao Te Ching hints that the highest virtue is without virtue and the highest benevolence is without benevolence. This may be a good example of, the way that can be spoken of this not the constant way. To paraphrase this disclaimer in relation to benevolence: The benevolence that could be spoken of is not the constant benevolence.

If nothing else, I see the Tao Te Ching aims at weaning the mind off its rigid dependence on word meaning. Once weaned, the mind is ready to ‘blow’… When your discernment penetrates the four quarters, Are you capable of not knowing anything? as D.C. Lau put it. More literally, chapter 10 says, When understanding reaches its full extent, can you know nothing?

Chapters 18, 19, and 38 offer more detail on benevolence.

When the great way is abandoned, there exists benevolent justice.#18

Cut off the sage, discard wisdom,
And the people benefit hundred fold.
Cut off benevolence, throw away justice,
And the people resume mourning kindness.
Cut off cleverness, discard advantage,
And robbers will not exist. #19

Superior virtue is not virtuous, and so has virtue.
Inferior virtue never deviates from virtue and so is without virtue.
Superior virtue never acts and never believes.
Inferior virtue never acts yet believes.
Superior benevolence acts yet never believes.
Superior justice acts and believes.
Superior etiquette acts but when none respond,
Normally roles up its sleeves and throws away.
Hence, Virtue follows loss of way.
Benevolence follows loss of virtue.
Justice follows loss of benevolence.
Ritual follows loss of justice.
Ways of chaos follow loss of loyalty and thinning faith in ritual.
Foreknowledge of the way, magnificent yet a beginning of folly.
The great man dwells in the thick, not in the thin.
Dwells in the true, not in the magnificent.
Hence, he leaves that and takes this. #38

The Taoist Story

The reality of life is certainly not as convenient for us as our stories would like it to be. I imagine that is why we often bury our heads in the sand, so to speak. When our story offers us what we want, how can we resist? I recall ‘camping’ out in the middle of the Sahara Desert and contemplating life very seriously. That environment, like the open ocean, stimulates such musings. At that stage in my life, I found myself half-wishing I could just simply buy into a normal comforting religious story… just believe in something and move on. It is curious why one can’t do that. It looks like the story must choose us, or rather, something deeper than thought makes the connection. This must have something to do with a cognitive least common denominator — if that makes any sense. For me, the Taoist ‘story’ is attractive in how it reaches beyond the story… and invites me to come along. That’s why I call it the faith of last resort. I could just as easily call it the story of last resort.

The Bio Hoodwink

Is not the space between heaven and earth like a bag?
Empty yet doesn’t submit,
. . . . moves yet recovers from all its coming and going.
More speech counts as exceptionally limited;
. . . . not in accord with keeping to the middle.

Again, biology — the bio hoodwink — pushes and pulls us to play life’s game as Nature intends. Humanity cleverly circumvents whatever rules it can to further its own ideals and desires. Obviously, we are not as clever as we think we are. The joke is on us much of the time. Nature fools us into focusing on the ‘big’ forces in nature. Size and strength impress us viscerally. We commonly associate action with defense or strength for success. Focusing on the ‘space’ and appreciating its value doesn’t come naturally. We fear failure, weakness, loss, silence, death — space! Survival instincts push us forward to fill space with action and word. Chapter 16 points back to what we so easily ignore in our rush forward.

Devote effort to emptiness, sincerely watch stillness.
Everything ‘out there’ rises up together, and I watch again.
Everything ‘out there’, one and all, return again to their root cause.
Returning to the root cause is called stillness;
this means answering to one’s destiny.
Answering to one’s destiny is called the constant;
knowing the constant is called honest.
Not knowing the constant, rash actions lead to ominous results.
Knowing the constant allows, allowing therefore impartial,
Impartial therefore whole, whole therefore natural,
Natural therefore the way.
The way therefore long enduring, nearly rising beyond oneself.

 ⁽¹⁾ It is not too far fetched to say, “True free will is without free will”. This correlates with Universal will, God’s will. It is impartial and without favoritism. Conversely, ‘normal’ free will is not free at all. It is bound to the self-interests driven by need and fear. Need and fear are not free. Need and fear originate in the will to survive.

‘True free will’ parallels the core of Buddha’s Fourth Truth, “There is salvation for him whose self disappears before truth, whose will is bent on what he ought to do, whose sole desire is the performance of his duty...” This brings us close to impartiality and without favoritism. It pretty much comes down to two ‘choices’ in life: what I want to do vs. what I ought to do. Core need determines which I end up doing. What I want rules the day unless or until some deeper necessity overrules those desires. No wonder we grab onto any thing that offers at least the illusion of permanence.

⁽²⁾ The importance of impartiality cannot be overstated. Perfect impartiality is not humanly possible, but accepting impartiality as the ‘gold standard’ of reality and truth are humanly possible, at least as principle. In addition, accepting impartiality as the ‘gold standard’ of truth and reality offers considerable peace from a ‘dogma eat dogma’ world.