The opening of moral character allows only the way through.
Of the way serving the outside world, only suddenly, only indistinct;
Indistinct and suddenly, amid which exists a shape.
Suddenly and indistinct, amid which exists the outside world;
Deep and dark amid which exists the essence.
Its essence is more than real.
Amid which exists trust.
From ancient times up to the present,
Its reputation never left because of the experience of the multitude.
Why do I know the multitude is of just this condition?
Because of this.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Word for Word
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
Archive: Characters and past commentary
Corrections?
None this time
Reflections:
The opening of moral character allows only the way through.
This first line holds a key that unlocks the rest of this chapter for me. However, the term moral character (德 = dé = virtue, character, integrity, heart) has cultural baggage/bias that easily obscures the ‘big picture’ here. Dropping off those words we get, the opening allows only the way through. In a sense, the opening is a filter that removes all labels (definition, differentiation, bias) and substance of any sort. What remains to pass through? Only suddenly, only indistinct. (1)
Indistinct and suddenly are of the moment, neither before nor after… and naturally nameless. Consciousness perceives the ‘way possible to think, runs counter to the constant way’. Where we differ from the rest of life on earth is the act of attempting to make tangible a natural essence [that] is more than real. The second line of chapter 1 cautions us on the shaky foundation upon which our labels, words, names — language itself — rests. The name possible to express runs counter to the constant name. Sure, language is useful for survival, but as with any good tool, it can cut both ways.
Its essence is more than real. Amid which exists trust. Trust is the ‘least common denominator’ that all things in creation have in common. Trust, a.k.a. universal consciousness, links ‘us’ (all creation) together, but in such an indistinct and suddenly way, that ‘we’ stand in awe. ‘We’ (all of creation) know this essence, but cannot pin it down enough in order to ignore it (take it for granted, discount, disrespect, etc.), and therefore…
Its reputation never left because of the experience of the multitude.
In other words, as ‘we’ all experience this essence; and through this essence ‘we’ are; ‘we’ know. (Again, this ‘we’ refers to all of creation, from atoms to galaxies.) Because humans have a brain that lends itself to ‘objective’ perception, our species cannot help but symbolically label this essence — to capture it, so to speak. Soon, we end up cleaving to the label as the essence, e.g., the word God. The labels dominate the mind. Although, it is not the label per se that gets in our way, but the emotional attachment to the label. The fervent certainty in our ‘objective knowledge’ is the real problem. As chapter 71 cautions: Realizing I don’t’ know is better; not knowing this knowing is disease.
Why do we cleave so desperately to word meaning until it becomes a law unto itself, until it owns our minds rather than being merely a temporary tool for the mind to use? One word says it all — fear! Our lonely disconnected existence drives us to make our ‘self-experience’ feel as tangible and real as possible. The fact that its essence is more than real is just too awesome and even terrifying for our particular brain to handle. This may be something of a ‘which came first’ question. Our incessant labeling of its essence divides us from its essence, which then drives us all the more to label its essence. This has ironic humor, ending with the fact that you can run from Mother Nature but you cannot hide (2). Why has this become such an issue for humanity? The shift from our ancestral ways to civilization’s hierarchical structure provides the best answer I have seen to date. For more details, see The Tradeoff.
(1) Civilization’s circumstances instill in us, from infancy onward, a propensity to notice distinctions, often making mountains out of molehills of difference. This hypersensitivity to difference serves civilization’s hierarchical structure. Differences are crucial to set up ranking in a hierarchy. To rebalance ourselves and return to a more ancestral mind-set, one needs to reprogram the digital processes playing out between one’s ears (i.e., the stories that misguide perception are the result of the electrochemical on-off (yin-yang) nature of neurological processes — a.k.a. the ‘bio-computer’ between our ears). That probably means enough self-brainwashing to better notice only suddenly, only indistinct. Well, perhaps brainwashing isn’t the right word. How does self-unlearning sound?
The problem lies in the mind’s ability to notice, learn and remember stuff. This draws us emotionally into acting upon what we think we know much more than is healthy. Chapter 48 points the way back toward balance…
(2) Well, our species may stand less in awe than the rest of creation. Our labeling of all things — the only suddenly, only indistinct — gives us a false sense of security, and so we take nature for granted. D.C. Lau puts it nicely, When the people lack a proper sense of awe, then some awful visitation will descend upon them. Word for word less so, at least at first glance: When the people don’t fear power, Normally great power arrives. We people don’t fear power [of nature] because we escape into our mind induced illusions for security… Oh yes… all this included. 🙂
Leave a Reply