Translation
The way possible to think, runs counter to the constant way.
The name possible to express runs counter to the constant name.
Without description, the universe began.
Of the describable universe, the origin.
Hence, normally without desire so as to observe its wonder.
Normally having desire so as to observe its boundary.
These two are the same coming out, yet differ in name.
The same, meaning dark and mysterious.
Dark and dark again, the multitude of wondrous entrance.
1) way (road, principle; speak; think, suppose) approve (can; may; fit; suit) way (road, principle; speak; think, suppose), wrong (run counter to) ordinary (normal; constant; invariable; usually) way (road, principle; speak; think, suppose). 道可道，非常道。(dào kĕ dào fēi cháng dào)
2) name (express; describe) approve (can; may; fit; suit) name (express; describe), wrong (run counter to) ordinary (normal; constant; invariable; usually) name (express; describe). 名可名，非常名。(míng kĕ míng fēi cháng míng)
3) nothing (nil; without) name (express; describe) heaven and earth (world; universe) of beginning (start). 无名天地之始。(wú míng tiān dì zhī shĭ)
4) have (there is; exist) name (express; describe) all things on earth of mother (origin; parent). 有名万物之母。(yŏu míng wàn wù zhī mŭ)
5) incident (hence; cause) ordinary (normal; constant; invariable; usually) nothing (nil; without) desire use (<v> take <p> according to; because of <adj> so as to <conj> and) observe its wonderful (excellent). 故常无欲以观其妙。(gù cháng wú yù yĭ guān qí miào)
6) ordinary (normal; constant; invariable; usually) have (there is; exist) desire use (<v> take <p> according to; because of <adj> so as to <conj> and) observe its boundary (by mere luck) 常有欲以观其徼。(cháng yŏu yù yĭ guān qí jiăo)
7) this two (both; either) (者) same (together) come out (exceed; go beyond; happen) <conj.> and (yet, but) different (strange; separate) name (express; describe), 此两者同出而异名，(cĭ liăng zhĕ tóng chū ér yì míng)
8) same (together) say (call; meaning; sense) of black (dark; mysterious; profound). 同谓之玄。(tóng wèi zhī xuán)
9) black (dark; mysterious; profound) of also (again) black (dark; mysterious; profound), many (numerous; crowd) wonderful (excellent; fine; ingenious; clever; subtle) of door (gate; valve; switch). 玄之又玄，众妙之门。(xuán zhī yòu xuán, zhòng miào zhī mén)
Fourth Pass: Chapter of the Month
(pandemic era)
Zoom on YouTube Recordings:
https://youtu.be/MP94E3C3v4Y is a link to unedited Zoom video of this month’s Sunday meeting. The shorter first part of the meeting begins with a chapter reading followed by attendees’ commentary, if any. A little later on begins the longer open discussion part of the meeting when those who wish to discuss how the chapter relates to their personal experience.
Corrections?
None this time
Reflections
The way possible to think, runs counter to the constant way.
The name possible to express runs counter to the constant name.
Without description, the universe began.
Of the describable universe, the origin.
I’ve been pondering recently how science’s quantum nonlocality / entanglement story(1) parallels a core aspect of all of humanity’s spiritual stories. The only true difference between the two is that the quantum nonlocality story has growing scientific evidence to back it up… non-sectarian verification! Conversely, traditional spiritual ‘god’ stories, and such, are mostly projections of the human social need (tribal) for ‘alpha-male’ leadership. Indeed, the only exception to the traditional spiritual stories that I’ve come across is the Tao Te Ching. The first line above, The way possible to think, runs counter to the constant way, says it all.
Hence, normally without desire so as to observe its wonder.
Normally having desire so as to observe its boundary.
These two are the same coming out, yet differ in name.
The human problem we all face is the competition between our biology (who we are as animals), and our imagination (the apparently unique feature of our species). All this boils down to reality vs. ideality, which we struggle with from infancy to death. This is somewhat akin to normally without desire vs. normally having desire in that we can imagine an ideal—a transcendent wonder—wherein desire (or it’s source fear & need) does not determine action (biology). These two are the same coming out, yet differ in name, seems to describe this duality; and this duality triggers the disease that chapter 71 identifies — Realizing I don’t know is better; not knowing this knowing is disease. To appreciate fully this competition, it may help to break down the origin of desire, and worry while we’re at it. Consider this:
Primal attraction (need) + thought = desire, positive expectations.
Primal aversion (fear) + thought = worry, anxiety, negative expectations.
If we subtract need and fear from this, we are left with thought, or imagination without an agenda. Here we can be normally without desire so as to observe its wonder. Nevertheless, biology generally pulls us into the latter… Normally having desire so as to observe its boundary. Do you see the problem? (For more see, Fear & Need Born in Nothing; Fear Is The Bottom Line; Fear Rules; Reward, Fear & Need; The Worry Gene; Feeding the Worry Gene.)
An optimal way to ameliorate this disconnect is having a story that is both as close to reality’s wonder as possible, yet also allows for desire’s boundary. The quantum nonlocality / entanglement story (1) serves that purpose well. It permits as much profound sameness as your imagination can reach, i.e., These two are the same coming out, yet differ in name. One thing is certain; we humans need a story for the mind to hold and chew on. Without one, we go insane. That is at least until we evolve or perhaps devolve some aspect of our biology. (See Belief in Nothing is Dangerous) On the other hand, who said life was supposed to be easy? Perhaps this disease will always be a core feature of our species.
The same, meaning dark and mysterious.
Dark and dark again, the multitude of wondrous entrance.
The more I can nudge my mind’s eye to see life through the Taoist dark and mysterious quantum entanglement lens, the easier it is for me to cease trying to make my imaginations idealities conform to my biological reality, or vice versa. Indeed, the fascinating feature of the Taoist worldview is how closely it parallels quantum theory, yet it can also serve as a bridge between the common way we see the world and the actual quantum way of nature… Dark and dark again, the multitude of wondrous entrance. Similarly, the quantum non-locality story can serve to counteract some of the common humanistic or superstitious embellishments found in Taoism.
Alas, all this only comes within reach when one is thoroughly ready to give up hope for an ‘end’ point, closure, resolution, final answers and solutions, or whatever you want to call such quixotic quests. As chapter 53 observes,
Therefore, life is really a journey, which begins for all of us with stumbling around to get our bearings. Once our culture has fully indoctrinated us with its “common sense” worldview, we may begin our journey of unlearning… inhale, weaken and let go of that common worldview. As the first lines of chapter 36 observe.
(1) I often referred to quantum nonlocality in my writings. For background, google [quantum entanglement] and [quantum nonlocality]. Also, YouTube [nonlocal, entangled, quantum], [Menas Kafatos] and [Donald Hoffman].
Video Archive https://youtu.be/MP94E3C3v4Y
Third Pass: Chapter of the Month
Corrections?
Line 9: I deleted the comma between multitude and of. What was I thinking… or not thinking?
Reflections:
In the early 80’s I became obsessed with exploring the deepest levels of word meaning possible. I don’t remember why, really. Perhaps it was the influence of the Tao Te Ching, which by that time I’d been reading for 20 years. The first two lines of chapter one, in particular, always stood out for me.
I spent six month locked away in my attic 24/7 consumed by what came to be a correlations process. In the end, this process really brought home to me the fabrication that is language. As a tool, words and names allowed us to survive extremely well, but these tools have taken over the mind. Breaking the hold words and names have on the mind liberates one from every story… even the Taoist one.
The way possible to think, runs counter to the constant way.
The name possible to express runs counter to the constant name.
These first two lines hint at why having the literal rendering of the Chinese can help. It is easy to get stuck on one particular meaning for words. We believe in and trust their verity too much (1). Right off the bat, the Tao Te Ching is cautioning us about doing exactly that, so considering synonyms helps loosen your ‘favorite’ (a.k.a., biased) connotation and nudge you closer to the constant way. Put simply, the more hooked on any particular nuanced meaning of a word, name, or thought, the more counter to the constant way it must run. Chapter 15 dances around this nicely…
It’s Magic
The magic show is a good metaphor for naming things and the thinking that ensues. We can all enjoy a well-done magic show without needing to believe the trick is reality. I find that the same applies to thinking. Machinations of the mind are like magic tricks. Magic tricks feel real, but we know they aren’t, yet we can enjoy the magic show nonetheless. That is certainly my experience as I write down these thoughts. It’s all only half-truths, here today, gone tomorrow — vanishing as if ice melting away. They can’t cause worry when you don’t anchor them in cognitive concrete. (See Core Issues of Human Nature: Belief)
Need vs. Need-not
Most of us will acknowledge that there are two sides to every issue, until it comes to an issue that is vital to our self-interest. Then we dig in our heels and stand our ground. Anyone interested in nearly rising beyond oneself, as chapter 16 puts it, needs to find ways to see the magic show in all things, even in positions they hold immutable. And yes, it should be a grueling ordeal; otherwise you’re not touching your cherished holdings.
Consider how two sides of a coin share the same coin. These two are the same coming out, yet differ in name… differ in name depending on which side you observe. Naturally, it’s easy to experience an actual coin. Observing and experiencing the same phenomenon in nature is one way to approach knowing Dark and dark again, the multitude of wondrous entrance. Of course, that is asking a lot from our dialectic mind.
Begin by taking this on faith that this might be true for everything. That will help you actually investigate life to look for examples and eventually prove it through experience. In order to learn something new, it helps greatly to acknowledge the possibility of its existence. Otherwise, curiosity finds other dialectic outlets. Acknowledging the possibility is a safe step to take in personally sensitive and cherished areas of belief.
Science vs. Religion
Without description, the universe began.
Of the describable universe, the origin.
Battles over origins between science and the faith-based crowd appear never ending. This is because both views are narrow and talk passed each other, and yet each has its unique strength. The science base wins on the Of the describable universe, the origin side of the coin. It brings us the practical useful tools to support the material side of life. Faith base would be much better off staying on its side of the coin, without description beginning, where it easily wins the day. That is outside the bounds of science… forever! The eye can’t see itself in the real world… only in the metaphysical world.
Matters made worse
Chapter 1 speaks to a serious problem humans began having some 100,000+ years ago. That was when language began supplanting primal intuition and set the stage for The way possible to think, and The name possible to express. Archeology along with research of pristine hunter-gatherer people in the last century provides abundant evidence that our hunter-gatherer ancestors coped rather well with this cognitive disconnection through an egalitarian social structure and various forms of what we now call ‘spiritual’ expression.
The Agriculture Revolution destabilized this old way as humanity traded the social security of the old way for material security of agriculture and the hierarchical social system — civilization — required to support it. In addition, the advent of literacy necessary for the ‘new’ economy of the Bronze Age lent even more authority to the illusionary reality of The way possible to think, and The name possible to express. For more on this, see Genus Homo’s Evolutionary Trade-off. To top this off, civilization opens the doorway much wider to ‘genius’ (2). Chapter 57 gives a taste of the Hydra nature of civilization and its ‘progress’ we cheer on.
This is not decrying civilization, or a call to return to the old way, even if we could. This is simply calling a spade a spade! Facing reality head-on helps avoid unrealistic expectations. Personally, having both cognitive feet on the ground feels better — stable and secure. Perhaps more importantly, facing reality also offers the best chance of managing circumstances as effectively and naturally as possible.
(1) To appreciate the superpower of belief just take note of how easily we emotionally buy into stories, movies, and books, even those that we know are pure fiction. It’s no wonder we buy into the cultural language and story in which society immersed us from infancy, e.g. religion, politics, sports, food, gender roles, fashion, etc. Especially powerful however are those stories that give form to our self-identity and expectations. We’re trapped in our world of words. As we think so shall we feel, despite what reality may actually be. Having a word or name for some perception locks the perception in what I call cognitive concrete.
If we believe in the truth of any name, word, or resulting story, we are subliminally implying that the rest of nature is ignorant, and even deficient. I can’t buy that. As I see it, our fixation on the verity of names and words is the manifestation of our own ignorance… we are ignorant, not the rest of nature. As chapter 71 puts it, Realizing I don’t’ know is better; not knowing this knowing is disease. “Realizing I don’t know” begins with ceasing to trust in word meaning. However, the first step in recovery for society overall won’t occur until humans culturally acknowledge we have this disease in the first place! It is only a matter of time, I reckon. That is why I suspect that the core Taoist point of view is many millenniums ahead of its time.
(2) Why doesn’t great genius show up among hunter-gatherers? Genius is an integral aspect of the hierarchical structure of civilization. Among other things, it expresses itself when an individual is hell bent on finding connection. The visceral need to connect with ‘something’ and boost life meaning is a major consequence of the disconnection civilized humanity experiences vis-à-vis the hierarchical social structure needed to manage and organize large numbers of people. Individuals in pursuit of a connection display ‘genius’ in how successful they are in the pursuit of their niche — genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration. Hunter-gatherers, having a much greater sense of connection, along with practically no niches to pursue left them in a state of social and material homeostasis, just like the rest of Earths creatures. They would have had the 1% inspiration, for that is genetic, but they lacked the pull of any connection-void needed to sweat it out.
Second Pass: Work in Progress
Issues:
Here we go again! This time I deleted a comma in the first line. How did it get there in the first place?
The challenge for me comes in the last line. There are various ways to see this. We have “dark and dark again“—the profound mystery. We have “the multitude” of creation—the myriad things ‘of’ the mystery, (embedded). We have in this a “wondrous entrance“—a gateway through which all this comes and goes. Wondrous entrance feels right today, I imagine other words will ‘pop’ out next time around. The trouble is that words convey a linear sense of how it is, while I get the strong sense that it is all contained in a kind of non-local complementary presence. Oh well…
Commentary:
I comment on each chapter as I cycled through the Tao Te Ching, and my understanding deepens a little each time, which goes to show how important the ‘eye of the beholder’ is in understanding. In my view, intuitive knowing is the key to whatever cognitive understanding we actually posses.
Many ‘translations’ of the Tao Te Ching are in fact rephrasing of real translations. Yet even those carry interpretive baggage from the intervening millennia from origins dark and dark again. When? As with most everything in human experience, origins stem from prehistoric oral traditions, as I see it (and really pre-oral, for that matter). In a word, biology, or rather in the wonder biology seeks to explore and name.
Interestingly, the college educated Chinese nationals I’ve met, and with whom have examined various chapters (in the Chinese original), often had great difficulty understanding the ancient point of view. A scholar of Chinese culture would do ‘better’, of course, but more than likely from a ‘dead man’s words (1)‘ perspective. The Tao Te Ching offers us the rare opportunity to touch the inside out edge of our mind. What I’m driving at is this: Your own intuitive knowing is where truth lies, and that knowing is constantly evolving over your lifetime. It can’t be trapped—that wondrous entrance!
If you are truly interested to know what the Tao Te Ching ‘teaches’, it is essential that you recognize that ‘the eye of the beholder’ is the major bridge to understanding. Indeed, I say it is the only way: We can only understand what we know. Essentially, scripture (at its best) is a mirror reflecting one’s own intuition, as well as (at its worst) serving to rationalize one’s own fears and needs, which accounts for much of scripture’s ‘misuse’.
Personally, I find the awkward and barely viable ‘English’ a real asset for helping me avoid ‘misuse’ and peek further into that ‘wondrous entrance‘. The odd English forces my beholding mind to think outside its box. The mind so loves to find a comfortable groove. It wants to just figure ‘it’ out, name ‘it’ and move on. This is the trap; a Taoist-point-of-view is not something that the mind can figure out and move on. It has to experience it ‘live’ to know. Otherwise, all we have are ‘dead man’s words (1)‘. Here in lies the value of wording that would flunk English… True speech isn’t beautiful.
Desire
Ridding myself of desire and allowing myself desire are two sides of a complementary coin. In a very real way, the more I throw myself at one, the more I energize the other side. Naturally, this is very hard to write about or describe. Allowing and ridding feel so opposite. The opposite that we sense are hoodwinks of our biology. Neurons make mountains out of molehills. The most practical thing I can say though is how being partial to one side merely encourages ramping up reaction to the other side. Speaking of reaction: Newton’s “for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction” seems to apply across the board, even to desire—well, especially to desire. Personally, I notice favoring one side, sets up an inner war zone, contending with myself.
Perhaps the more important thing to remember is that desire drives the blind spot. If I feel desire, the blind spot is active. The more the desire, the wider and deeper the blind spot. Of course, it goes much deeper than just ‘desire’. Desires are a broad based symptom of inner needs + thought and fears + thought (worry). Desire and worry blindside perception and paint a worldview that corresponds to my emotional reality. That is a dead end, or to put it more sympathetically, “Normally having desire so as to observe its boundary.” This is not to say we should do anything about this. Simply understanding what is occurring will set our life’s ball rolling in a more balance direction. It happens not by fate, but naturally.
Hence, normally without desire so as to observe its wonder describes the only way I can ‘think outside the box’ my emotions put me in. Without desire is the prerequisite for seeing reality as close to what it is as humanly possible. That would explain why sleeping on ‘it’, or soaking in the hot bath, spawns insight. Yes, there is always the chance that bio-hoodwink is fooling my perception; how do I know that I know what I know? I can’t, and so realizing I don’t know is superior, not knowing this realization is a defect.
These two are the same coming out, yet differ in name. The same, meaning dark and mysterious. Naming things we observe in the world creates a schism, which rips our awareness away from the original contemporaneous whole. Observing differences is essential for survival; to know a stick from a snake, for example. Believing that the differences we perceive are ultimately real, on the other hand, is not necessary for survival—no other animals do this. Too much of a useful survival asset has become a liability, leaving the mind without hope for resolution and peace. I find that remembering to look for profound sameness in what appears different boosts my own sanity.
Suggested Revision:
The way possible to think runs counter to the constant way.
The name possible to express runs counter to the constant name.
Without description(,) the universe began.
Of the describable universe, the origin.
Hence, normally without desire so as to observe its wonder.
Normally having desire so as to observe its boundary.
These two are the same coming out, yet differ in name.
The same, meaning dark and mysterious.
Dark and dark again, the multitude, of wondrous entrance.
(1) My paraphrase of “But these ancients, and what it was not possible for them to convey, are dead and gone: so then what you, my Ruler, are reading is but their dregs and sediments!” (From Chuang Tzu’s Thien Tâo, or ‘The Way of Heaven’, see The Writings of Chuang Tzu.
(Beginning) First Pass: Chapter of the Week
This old dog’s got to learn a few new tricks to deal with this new format. In the meantime I’ll just flog away, starting today.
I’m not sure what to do about the translations and commentaries. I’ve dumped out two decades worth of commentary using D.C. Lau’s translation. Now, in translating it myself, the translation is, in truth, also a commentary; meaning that interpretation and translation can not be anything other than commentary in the final view. If you feel ‘reality is in the eye of the beholder’ you’ll agree I expect.
Anyway, here is how I see chapter 1 today. You’ll note some striking differences between the ‘normal way’ it is usually translated and what I’ve done here. It tickles my mind’s eye. Who knows what I’ll see when I next revisit this chapter. First the more readable translation (yet with a minimum of poet license), followed by a translation of the literal Chinese.
Note: I revisited this chapter a bit today (Jan 2011). I found a better match. The terse Chinese often offers much leeway in translation which helps blunt the sharpness, soften the glare. On the other hand, I like to get as close as possible to the chapter’s intent.
It is helpful to remember that even the most authentic translations carry interpretive and commentary baggage from the intervening millennia when it was ‘originally written’. When was it originally written? Or more likely, wasn’t it derived from a oral transmission dating far back into prehistory. This is just another reason why it is essential to realize that ‘the eye of the beholder’ is the major bridge to understanding.
Normally without desire and normally having desire are two sides of a complementary coin. In a very real way, the more I throw myself at one, the more that energizes the other side. Naturally, this is very hard to write about or describe. Without desire and having desire feel so opposite. The opposites we sense are hoodwinks of our biology. Neurons make mountains out of molecular molehills. The most practical thing I can say here is how being partial to one side merely encourages the other side to ramp up its reaction.
Speaking of reaction: Can you see how Newton’s “for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction” applies to so much more than physics. Personally, I notice giving to one side sets up a war zone within. I contend with myself. My ideal of what should be so battles against what is so. The ideals I cooked up for how to improve my life always backfire in the end… except my ideal to downplay my ideals. Paradoxically, that works beautifully just as chapter 1 suggests.
The name possible to express runs counter to the constant name. Without description, the universe began. Our practice of labeling (naming) things we observe in the world create a schism, which rips us from the whole. One name begins two, begets three and to on to infinity… it is without end or resolution. That means without peace..