Translation
The wise person is without ordinary intention.
Takes the common people’s intention as his intention.
With kindness, I am also kind.
Without kindness, I am also kind, of integrity kind.
With trust, I also trust.
Without trust, I also trust, of integrity trust.
How does the wise person exist, all under heaven, breathing in?
Becoming all under heaven, simple and natural his intention.
All the multitude explain with their knowledge;
The wise person, each and every child.
1) sage (holy; sacred) human (man; people) nothing (without; not) ordinary (normal; constant; often) heart (mind; feeling; intention; center, core). 圣人无常心。(shèng rén wú cháng xīn.)
2) use (<v> take <p> according to; because of <adj> so as to <conj> and) common people heart (mind; feeling; intention; center) do (act; act as; serve as; be; mean) heart (mind; feeling; intention; center, core). 以百姓心为心。(yĭ băi xìng xīn wéi xīn.)
3) good (perfect; kind) (者) I (we) good (perfect; kind) of. 善者吾善之。(shàn zhĕ wú shàn zhī.)
4) no (not) good (perfect; kind)(者) I (we) also (too) good (perfect; kind) of virtue (moral character; heart) good (perfect; kind). 不善者吾亦善之德善。(bù shàn zhĕ wú yì shàn zhī dé shàn.)
5) true (trust; faith; believe)(者) I (we) true (trust; faith; believe) of. 信者吾信之。(xìn zhĕ wú xìn zhī.)
6) no (not) true (trust; faith; believe) (者) I (we) also (too) true (trust; faith; believe) of, virtue (moral character; heart) true (trust; faith; believe). 不信者吾亦信之、德信。(bù xìn zhĕ wú yì xìn zhī, dé xìn.)
7) sage (holy; sacred) human (man; people) exist (be living) land under heaven inhale here (herein; (usu. negative questioning) how; why)? 圣人在天下歙歙焉，(shèng rén zài tiān xià shè shè yān,)
8) do (act; act as; serve as; be; mean) land under heaven muddy (turbid; simple and natural; unsophisticated; whole) his (its, he, it, that; such) heart (mind; feeling; intention; center, core). 为天下浑其心。(wéi tiān xià hún qí xīn.)
9) common people all (each and every) pour (concentrate; fix; annotate; explain with) his (her; its; their; they; that; such) what one sees and hears (knowledge; information; one who spies for sb. else). 百姓皆注其耳目，(băi xìng jiē zhù qí ĕr mù,)
10) sage (holy; sacred) human (man; people) all (each and every) child of. 圣人皆孩之。(shèng rén jiē hái zhī.)
Third Pass: Chapter of the Month
(pandemic era)
Zoom on YouTube Recordings:
https://youtu.be/-a_V8gOe6r4 is the link to the 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 wise person is without ordinary intention.
Takes the common people’s intention as his intention.
There is an ordinary intention behind every action in life, driving every living being on the planet to achieve a successful outcome, to turn intention into reality. Naturally, this is a characteristic of the bio-hoodwink, (see How the hookwink hooks). Human desire — need + thought — severely complicates this straightforward biological process.
I am reasonably capable of being without ordinary intention to a decent degree as long as I distrust thought enough to reduce its influence on my emotion, i.e., thought amplifies emotion, revving up need and fear, which then feed back into thought. Chapter 71’s Realizing I don’t know is better; not knowing this knowing is disease, bluntly points a way out of this vicious circle. Naturally, the difficulty here is that emotion drives thought and that trust itself originates in emotion. No wonder distrusting thought is most difficult. I suppose any true and deep distrust must originate in emotion.
Sincerely embracing the fact that one’s belief in free will is an illusion can help further divorce thought from emotion. Without this belief biasing perception, it becomes much easier to remove the narrow ‘personal’ (ego) aspect and realize the underlying universality of intention. From this bottom line vantage point, I see your intention is also my intention; need and fear are the common denominators. At this lowest level, ‘I can walk in other people’s shoes’, so to speak. Again, the difficulty here lies in how social animals overall have an instinctive sense of self-agency, which for humans causes our myopic belief in free will. (See Free Willers Anonymous)
In other words, if you know yourself deeply enough, you can’t help but notice the common ground your intention shares with everyone—indeed, with all living things. As chapter 56 reminds, This is called profound sameness. This is the shared constant truth of life so broad and deep that it can’t be named. As chapter 1 observes, The way possible to think, runs counter to the constant way. The name possible to express runs counter to the constant name.
With kindness, I am also kind.
Without kindness, I am also kind, of integrity kind.
With trust, I also trust.
Without trust, I also trust, of integrity trust.
On the face of it, this makes a similar point that Christ made, “But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.” The problem with Christ’s advice is that it’s not biologically achievable. Aspiring to an unreachable ideal is not effective in the long run… as history demonstrates!
It is important to note how these lines here link kind and trust with integrity. That forces me to look deeper into my own nature… my integrity. Just how is integrity connected to trust and kindness? I do know that when I lack kindness and trust, I don’t feel my own integrity. I can only feel trust and kindness when I’m emotionally in balance—at peace. It may help to deepen the meaning of integrity by returning to the Chinese: dé (德) virtue (moral character; integrity; heart).
I feel the greatest sense of ‘moral character; integrity; heart’ when I feel trust and kindness. The better I can take the common people’s intention as [my] intention, the more likely I can… without trust, I also trust, of integrity trust. You see, it is not a simple matter of trusting even when facing an untrustworthy situation. One problem with a Christ-like interpretation is that it feels proscriptive… a kind of “Just do it!” admonition. That invokes the free will myth, much to the detriment of a deeper appreciation of nature’s way. (See Free Will: Fact or Wishful Thinking?) Only when I feel ‘the other’ as myself am I able to Without trust, I also trust, of integrity trust.
How does the wise person exist, all under heaven, breathing in?
Becoming all under heaven, simple and natural his intention.
This begs the question, how does a presumably wise person exist amid the trials and tribulations all around him or her? Frankly, the more common ground I feel between all creation and myself, the more integral to all creation I am able to feel. One of the main traumas in life comes from feeling apart, separate from ‘the other’. This disconnect appears to result in either loneliness (yin) or aggression (yang). Conversely, feeling one with ‘the other’, even to a point where there is no ‘other’ is love… plain and simple. (See Tat tvam asi.)
Becoming all under heaven, simple and natural his intention is simply realizing the universality of your life experience. The illusion of self, or a separate self (ego), is driven by powerful emotional attachments, as Buddha pointed out (i.e., The illusion of self originates and manifests itself in a cleaving to things). This chapter, and the rest of the Tao Te Ching, is plainly trying to return us to our ancestral self—our original self—and free us to some degree from civilization’s hierarchical mind set instilled in us from infancy.
Now some say that we are naturally hierarchical and of course, they are correct. Importantly, the degree makes all the difference. Research of hunter-gatherer people demonstrates that ancestral humanity was predominately egalitarian, with only minor hierarchical characteristics. In the shift away from that way of life to a settled and civilized one, culture weaponized that minor hierarchical instinct into an effective method of domesticating and organizing mass populations. (See The Tradeoff for a deep dive into this matter.)
The multitude all explain with their knowledge;
The wise person, each and every child.
When I stand back from life’s daily ebb and flow, I notice the constant commotion playing out at all levels of society. I realize all knowledge at its most basic level is simply “gossip”. Moreover, I know it has always been this way… for all animals, including us. It only became a problem for us when humanity shifted from its ancestral way of life to a civilized one some 10,000 years ago. The knowledge problem has only increased over this time, and thanks to the Internet perhaps to a point now where less is truly more.
The strongest illusion of knowledge is that it permits us to believe we are superior, that we are getting somewhere; that true progress is reachable. This is a unique cognitive outcome only we humans suffer, and which only an impartial eye can neutralize. Indeed, only an impartial eye can perceive the whole of humanity as each and every child. When I see all being as the children they are, I am wise… yet also one among the rest, children all. In other words, as the first line of this chapter says, Takes the common people’s intention as his intention.
Second Pass: Work in Progress
Issues:
Line 1 and 4: Intention and Integrity could use some explanation. The first, intention, is my choice of words for xīn (心) the heart; heart; mind; feeling; intention; centre; core.
This touches our primary core experience of life. I think back to the time before modern culture (aided by science) made such precise distinctions between heart and mind — basically, feeling and thinking… and mind vs. body, of course!
We now put intelligence on a pedestal, and that is short sighted. Human cognitive ability has taken center stage, probably because of an ever-growing emphasis on science and technology.
Instead, I regard feeling as the bottom line. How we feel drives how we think to a large extent. Feeling is the common denominator among all animals; thinking is a human thing. Thinking is just the rather thick icing on perception’s cake.
Integrity is my choice for dé (德) virtue; morals; moral character; moral integrity; heart; mind; kindness; favor. As you can see, the first choices in the translation carry a lot of cultural baggage. Virtue, morals are very relative to cultural consensus, which varies a great deal around the world and throughout time. Moral integrity conveys the spirit, as long as we remove cultural bias from the ‘moral’ and emphasize the ‘integrity’. In pondering my deepest sense of the word integrity, self-honesty comes to mind. In looking up it synonyms I found: veracity, reliability, honesty, uprightness, honor, truthfulness. So, self-honesty fits. When we know ourselves and accept the original self we are, without reservation, we are most capable of moral integrity. This ties right in with lines 1 and 2 in my view.
Line 9 & 10: I made a slight, not particularly meaningful change in the wording.
D.C. Lau translates these last two lines as The people all have something to occupy their eyes and ears, and the sage treats them all like children. I take issue with this in that it puts an elitist meaning on it that I don’t see in the original. The literal goes more like this: The multitude all explain with their knowledge; The wise person, each and every child. For me, the literal seems to parallel some aspects of what Jesus says about children, albeit in a far murkier way:
Verily I say unto you, whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein. Luke 18:17
Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection. Luke 20:36
Of course, Tao Te Ching as a whole often leaves a lot up to the eye of the beholder. Here is how this last line break down: sage (holy; sacred) human (man; people) all (each and every) child of. 圣人皆孩之。(shèng rén jiē hái zhī.)
I read this in an implied inclusive context. D.C. Lau seems to read it in a hierarchical and paternalistic context. Who’s right? In the end, truth lies in the beholder’s eye. In a narrow, purely biological context, I see D.C. Lau’s framework fits; in a universal, impartial, rising beyond on self context, I can’t help but feel mine fits. Take your pick 😉 I do realize that D.C. Lau’s interpretation will fall on receptive ears sooner than mine would simply because we are a hierarchical species.
Commentary:
The wise person is without ordinary intention. Takes the common people’s intention as his intention, speaks to how a person’s intention is ordinarily a reflection of his or her agenda, which is largely composed of imagined scenarios, future expectations, and worries—all tinged with ambition. To put it more bluntly, need and fear provide motivation; each and every one of us are just the vehicle. Felt at this level, what else can one do but take the common people’s intention as his intention?
As ‘profound sameness‘ continues to takes a greater hold on my outlook, I can’t help but see my intentions as coincident with the common people’s intentions. I am them! They are me! It is an odd feeling, and one not easily shared, ironically enough. I guess because sharing relies on sharing differences primarily. Language itself depends upon difference in definition, which gives words their meaning. Sharing the sameness, especially the profound sameness, is best accomplished with profound silence: Carry out the indescribable teaching — and — Not of words teaching, without action advantage.
With trust, I also trust. Without trust, I also trust, of integrity trust. I think of the trust like this: I trust everyone to being human and react according to their perceptions, and not according to some artificial prescribed morality. Trusting people simply to be people really tests my ability to see life outside any free will sensibilities I may harbor. Of course, this is not what my biology yearns for—I want certainty; I want fairness and justice. No, I’ve played the being bio-hookwinked game long enough. Time for something a little different—outside the instinctive box as far as I can manage it.
Suggested Revision:
The wise person is without ordinary intention.
Takes the common people’s intention as his intention.
With kindness, I am also kind.
Without kindness, I am also kind, of integrity kind.
With trust, I also trust.
Without trust, I also trust, of integrity trust.
How does the wise person exist, all under heaven, breathing in?
Becoming all under heaven, simple and natural his intention.
The multitude all explain with their knowledge;
The wise person, each and every child.
First Pass: Chapter of the Week
First consider how we interpret two core ‘taoist’ words, De and Xin: De is the De of Dao De Jing (i.e., Tao Te Ching) and translates all the way from virtue, integrity, character… to… heart, mind, kindness. The other, Xin, translates as heart, mind, feeling, intention, center, core. These words can infer different meanings now (esp. in the West) than they did a few thousand of years ago.
For example, Christian culture narrows and polarizes the meaning of virtue with it’s views on God; how different they are from the Taoist view of God! Science also narrows and polarizes definitions, like the precise distinction made between heart and mind. Overall, we continue to cut the uncarved block into smaller, more distinct pieces. This makes translating the Tao Te Ching challenging! Although, this is easier when I am as thick like the uncarved block; vacant like a valley; murky like muddy water as possible. Likewise, a reader will understand this better by approaching it with a similar Xin (i.e., heart, mind, feeling, intention, center, core).
The word Xin (same sound as above but a different character and tone) translates as true, confidence, trust, faith and believe, and can vary widely in what it infers. Personally, I have faith that ducks will be ducks; likewise I have faith that people will be people. This is a bottom line faith in the reality of ‘what is’, rather than faith in an ideal of what should ideally be. I have trust in people, that they will be people rather than judging them from an ideal moral standard. This is more like having no mind of my own, but taking on as my own the mind of the people. Of course, it is not that straightforward in real life. I must always first go through a muddled phase before I can see clearly. I find this the precondition for clarity and understanding, however indistinct and shadowy understanding ends up being. We can’t know until we viscerally realize that we don’t. Ah yes, straightforward words seem paradoxical.
What does true, faith and trust, or any other word, truly mean? Words are like ‘black boxes’ that emotions go into and come out of, but the ‘box’ itself is cloaked in mystery. Words are like the outside of the box, we usually only look at the outside and take ‘meaning’ for granted. Meaning though is really only a reflection of our own emotions (primal needs and fears) and, by extension, of how we see the world. Word are mirrors and mean nothing in themselves. Even so, we often take and use words at face value as if real in their own right.
The adage ‘put your money where your mouth it’ speaks to this. How kind is being kind when others are kind to you? How about when, without kindness, I am also kind, of integrity kind? (D.C. Lau puts it less literally and so less awkwardly as: Those who are not good I also treat as good.) Being kind to those who are not kind exemplifies the no stings attached emotion of giving, not one of exchanging or taking. We know anecdotally and through science (brain scans) that giving is more pleasurable that receiving. Revenge, passing judgment and favoritism are acts of taking, and so are less pleasurable. Simply put, love feels a lot more pleasurable than hate.
So why would anyone ‘choose’ anything other than giving kindness and love? Why don’t we all do as Christ suggested and just “turn the other cheek”? Simple, we have no free will when it comes to choosing our feelings, our emotions! Action and reaction is the only arena in which we have choice. Yet, even this is only pseudo-choice, for our choice of actions originates in emotion. Note: If you understand all this, ‘murky’ it up a bit by considering kindness (i.e., good, perfect, kind) in its Taoist context, i.e., the whole world recognizes the good as the good, yet this is only the bad.
DC Lao’s version may seem a little at odds with itself to some. The sage has no mind of his own. He takes as his own the mind of the people initially agrees with the more literal, The wise person is without ordinary intention. Takes the common people’s mind as his mind. But how does this mesh with The sage in his attempt to distract the mind of the empire seeks urgently to muddle it? He is attempting to distract the mind of the empire, which as we see, is his own, i.e., ‘he takes as his own the mind of the people’. This reminds me of, I alone am muddled. Calm like the sea. The Tao Te Ching is certainly a cornucopia of food for thought! No wonder I have difficulty keeping my commentary as short as I’d like. Sometimes I feel like I’m just beating a dead horse. Still, that is better than beating a living one. 🙂