Translation
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 (emperor) 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.
1) road (way, principle; speak; think) (者) all things on earth of profound (difficult to understand> oersted). 道者万物之奥。(dào zhĕ wàn wù zhī ào.)
2) good (satisfactory) human (man; people) of treasure (precious), no (not) good (satisfactory) human (man; people) of place protect (maintain; preserve). 善人之宝，不善人之所保。(shàn rén zhī băo, bù shàn rén zhī suŏ băo.)
3) beautiful (good) speech (word; say; talk) can (may) market (city) senior (respect; venerate). 美言可以市尊。(mĕi yán kĕ yĭ shì zūn.)
4) beautiful (good) go (prevail; do; behavior; O.K.) can (may) add (plus; increase; augment) human (man; people). 美行可以加人。(mĕi xíng kĕ yĭ jiā rén.)
5) human (man; people) of no (not) good (satisfactory), who (why) throw away (discard; abandon) of have (exist). 人之不善，何弃之有。(rén zhī bù shàn, hé qì zhī yŏu.)
6) reason (cause; on purpose; hence) stand (set up) the Son of Heaven (the emperor), place (put; establish) three (more than two; several; many) public (common; equitable; impartial), 故立天子、置三公，(gù lì tiān zĭ, zhì sān gōng,)
7) though (although) have (exist) encircle (arch; push) piece of jade use (<v> take <p> according to; because of <adj> so as to <conj> and) earlier (first) a team of four horses, 虽有拱璧以先驷马，(suī yŏu gŏng bì yĭ xiān sì mă,)
8) no (not) equal to (not as good as; inferior to) sit (take a sit; travel, have its back towards) advance (enter; receive; eat; take) this road (way, principle; speak; think). 不如坐进此道。(bù rú zuò jìn cĭ dào.)
9) ancient (age-old) of <conj.> so (therefore; as a result) expensive (precious; noble) this road (way, principle; speak; think) (者) who (why). 古之所以贵此道者何。(gŭ zhī suŏ yĭ guì cĭ dào zhĕ hé.)
10) no (not) say (call; name) beg (request; seek; try; demand) use (<v> take <p> according to; because of <adj> so as to <conj> and) get (obtain, gain > satisfied_need; must), 不曰：求以得，(bù yuē, qiú yĭ dé,)
11) have (exist) crime (blame; pain; hardship) use (<v> take <p> according to; because of <adj> so as to <conj> and) excuse (exempt; avoid) evil (heretical; irregular; unhealthy environment)? 有罪以免邪？(yŏu zuì yĭ miăn xié?)
12) reason (cause; on purpose; hence) do (act; act as; serve as; be; mean; support) land under heaven expensive (precious; noble). 故为天下贵。(gù wéi tiān xià guì.)
Fourth Pass: Chapter of the Month
(pandemic era)
Zoom on YouTube Recordings:
https://youtu.be/Kf8BBPMiipQ 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 way of all things is profound and difficult to understand.
Today this chapter struck me as oddly different from the other 81. Was it actually different, or was it just in my mind? Well, of course, “what is” is always in the mind of the beholder. I just wonder if the next time I read this chapter I’ll see it as odd as I did today. I really doubt it.
Anyway, it begins by telling me that The way of all things is profound and difficult to understand. Then the remainder says nothing specific about the way, which is reasonable given that the way of all things is profound and difficult to understand. This unique aspect sets the Tao Te Ching apart from most every other human story, in that it leaves the readers to fill in the understanding from their own experience. Typically, culture goes to great lengths to “educate”—indoctrinate—the people. Undoubtedly, this is what most people desperately crave. Put simply, certainty of belief instills security whereas uncertainly stirs up fear. Our fear driven need to know leads to our disease, i.e., Realizing I don’t know is better; not knowing this knowing is disease.
Taking this first part, the way of all things, literally—and I mean very literally—does make the last part, is profound and difficult to understand, entirely understandable. Viewed this way, I see less “oddly different” about this chapter. The way of all things, taken literally implies the existence of a common denominator between literally all things in the universe. That is a very big and diverse basket of ‘stuff’! Right away, I think of profound sameness as the only way to crack this nut. As chapter 56 points out…
This also makes the first line of chapter 56 obvious and easily understandable. When awareness expands to take in reality’s big and diverse basket of ‘stuff’, our words, speech, and thought fail completely. The inherent profound sameness between all things is beyond the ability of thought to parse out. I found the way to cultivate this intuitive knowing is to seek out the similarities hidden in that which appears to be very different. Gradually the ‘big picture’ comes into view.
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?
One exceptional feature of the Tao Te Ching lies in how nothing is abandoned. There is no threat of a Hell to punish miscreants who run afoul of the way. Chapter 27 describes this protective aspect superbly …
How could it be otherwise given the core view of Taoist thought? Simply put, differences are illusionary whereas similarities are reality. Knowledge requires the demarcation of reality (i.e., names), which makes any perception of singular unity impossible. Or as chapter 1 concludes…
Chapter 56 also spells out this profound equivalence called profound sameness as you saw in the commentary earlier.
Hence, the son of heaven establishes three commonalities,
It is helpful to note that the son of heaven (emperor) would have the Mandate of Heaven as long as he ruled for the good of his people. If he failed that, he would lose the Mandate of Heaven and eventually be tossed aside. Signs that an emperor had lost the Mandate of Heaven included peasant uprisings, invasions by foreign troops, drought, famine, floods, and earthquakes.
Of course, this Mandate of Heaven could also be called the Mandate of Nature for this is exactly how nature operates, although not on the schedule we invariably desire. We all—saints and sinners alike—want what we want, and we want it now. We seldom have the patience or wisdom to allow nature to play out. Thus, as chapter 29 reminds us, With desire choosing anything, of doing I see no satisfied end. Then chapter 37 adds,
Note how chapter 64’s advice here gets quite practical…
The point here is that desire is an emotion that pressures a person to rush forward. This makes being patient and careful at the end of any moment very difficult. Note how Buddha’s Fourth Noble Truth echoes this practicality…
Of course, this is a tall order because biology drives our core need and fear, which when transitioning through our mind’s imagination and memory, become desire and worry, i.e., need + thinking = Desire and fear + thinking = Worry. Nonetheless, sincerely acknowledging the actual source of your problems goes along way to managing any true causes.
Now on to the three commonalities…
(1) Even though surrounded by jade and presented with horses,
Not equal to receiving the way.
Or as Jesus put it,
19 Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:
20 But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:
21 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.
(2) Of old, why was this way so valued?
Was it not said that by using it one got what one sought.
We all find ourselves seeking something in life. When we find ‘it’, we begin almost immediately seeking the next ‘something’, and so on throughout life. It is clear from this, that we never actually get what we seek. If we truly did, the seeking would stop. Of course, simple biology drives us to seek the basics for survival. However, we have no innate (biological) sense of when to stop. Sure, we stop eating when we’re full, but as soon as hunger returns we eat. This natural process works well for animals in the wild obviously. For the human animal with its profound ability to imagine and remember, we never stop ‘eating’, metaphorically speaking. Chapter 30 describes the situation well, Those most adept have results, yet stop, not daring to seek better. Certainly, the ‘more is better’ urge is a necessary survival instinct in all animals and this works perfectly in the wild. Human imagination and memory warp this urge into what is too much of a good thing… especially following the Neolithic Revolution—also referred to as the Agricultural Revolution—that began around 12,000 years ago. (For a brief overview, see The Tradeoff) Indeed, chapter 32 gets right to our core problem: names, which are among the building blocks of thought and imagination.
(3) By using it, one avoids the evils of hardship.
Hence, all under heaven value it.
What is the universal driver of the hardship we face in life? Certainly, all life on Earth faces survival hardship throughout life. This is the work of living, as it were. The human cognitive ability (imagination, language, memory) enables us to invent myriad clever ways to avoid the survival hardship animals in the wild face. Yet, have we managed to avoids the evils of hardship? Hardly! If anything, we experience ever-increasing hardship… not the survival type of hardship mind you. Ironically, the hardship we face is a direct result of our clever ability to escape natural survival hardship.
By using it, one avoids the evils of hardship begs the question, what is “it” that we need to use. Obviously, we’re not using “it” because we keep trying to avoid hardship through innovation and legislation, among other things.
When I ponder the rest of life on Earth, I see one quality that all under heaven value, but that we can’t get our heads around… literally. Our imagination and thought, set in our memory of past, present, and future, go a long way to hiding the eternal moment from our awareness. Sure, it is still there as the root of consciousness itself. However, on top of this, we live in a virtual reality that takes place in our mind. Essentially, we’ve become disconnected from “it”—the eternal moment that all under heaven value. Again, this is one outcome of the disease chapter 71 describes.
When you can bring yourself to sincerely realize you genuinely don’t know, the disease becomes much more manageable, i.e., The sacred person is not ill, taking his disease as illness. This means tossing all certainty of belief—any belief—out of the mind’s window. The difficulty here lies in how we derive much of our illusion of self from the thoughts and beliefs we cleave onto. Buddha nailed this problem in his Second Noble Truth, The illusion of self originates and manifests itself in a cleaving to things. Things being both material and certainty of thought (ideals, beliefs).
Chapter Archive https://youtu.be/GNEpEwIjQZo
This is the complete video. It begins with blowing Zen followed by the meeting
Third Pass: Chapter of the Month
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.
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.
Second Pass: Work in Progress
Issues:
What is “oersted” (Line 1) you ask? Oersteds are used to measure magnetizing field strength. That has nothing to do with this chapter, other than also being related to something difficult to understand. I am tempted to change myriad to the more literal ‘all’ or ‘infinite’. The words here, wànwù (万物) are normally tranlated as all things on earth. Wàn (万) means: ten thousand; a very great number; myriad; absolutely. Wù (物) means: thing; matter; the outside world as distinct from oneself; other people; content; substance. Together I see this saying all things… period. Others on Sunday liked myriad more as they thought it gives a real sense of truly all. Hmm… Words are fragile evanescent little things aren’t they? No wonder ‘taoists’ don’t place too much faith in their meaning. Next, I am tempted to change not good person to simply ‘bad’ person. But, that also looses subtler meanings. Oops, I think I’m shifting even more into the commentary side of this chapter now…
Commentary:
Consider this: bùshàn (不善) translates together as: bad; ill; not good at. Now, contrast this with bùliáng (不良) which translates together as: bad; harmful; unhealthy. The former (bùshàn) are the characters for chapter 61. The later (bùliáng) also mean bad, but in a more malicious sense of the word. The former conveys a gentler, more circumspect point-of-view. The later conveys a more gut level emotion. Let’s take a closer look at these two. The fist character, bù, (不) is the same for both sets, bùshàn and bùliáng, and means ‘no, not’. That is followed by shàn (善) in the former, and liáng (良) in the later. These translate respectively as:
shàn: (善) good; satisfactory; good; make a success of; perfect; kind; friendly; be good at; be expert in; be adept in; properly; be apt to.
liáng: (良) good; fine; very; very much.
Well, I’m probably digging deeper in this than anyone wishes to descend (1). Still, pondering the qualities each conveys, both similarities and differences, and then inserting bù, (不) before them can make this more thought provoking. I’ve tentatively decided to put it this way: For the perfect person it is precious, for the imperfect person it is protective. This actually feels more balanced. I feel most perfect when I am feeling ‘it’ precious; when I’m outside that enchanted zone, ‘it’ still protects (even if under my radar).
Hence, the son of heaven (emperor) establishes three commonalities, is curious. What three commonalities? One one hand, I think of the three treasures mentioned in chapter 67, i.e., I have three treasures of which I hold and protect: The first I call kindness, The second I call thrift, The third I call not daring to act before all below heaven. On the other hand, the three pairs of lines below this three commonalities’ statement can also fit the bill. Indeed, I see in them three parallels to the Christian story. Here goes. Forgive any inaccuracy in quoting the Biblical references.
Even though surrounded by jade and presented with horses, Not equal to receiving the way corresponds to “Lay not your treasures upon earth where rust doth corrupt; lay them in heaven…”
Of old, why was this way so valued? Wasn’t it said that by using it one got what one sought corresponds to “Seek and ye shall find.”
By using it, one avoids the evils of hardship. Hence it is valued by all under heaven corresponds to the last words Christ reportedly said on the cross, “Forgive them, for they know not what they do.”
Suggested Revision:
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 not good, why abandon them?
Hence, the son of heaven (emperor) 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.
(1) On the chance anyone wants more, I offer various translations below of the moral connotation easily ascribed to the word bad, in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic West. 不善 (bùshàn: bad; ill; not good at; <dialect> not to be pooh-poohed; quite impressive) doesn’t really fit those, so translating it as bad, as D.C. Lau and other do, feels very misleading. Notice the <dialect> meaning for bùshàn. In English we’d say something like, “Not bad, eh.”
Evil
恶 wù: loathe; dislike; hate.
恶 è: evil; vice; wickedness; fierce; ferocious.
害 hài: evil; harm; calamity; do harm to; impair; kill; suffer from; feel (afraid, etc.).
孽 niè: evil; sin.
歹 dǎi: bad; evil; vicious.
否 pǐ: bad; wicked; evil; censure.
奸 jiān: wicked; evil; traitor; self-seeking
Bad
不良 bùliáng: bad; harmful; unhealthy.
坏 huài: bad; go bad; spoil; ruin; badly; awfully; very; evil idea; dirty trick.
劣 liè: bad; inferior; of low quality.
错 cuò: interlocked and jagged; intricate; rub; stagger; wrong; fault; bad.
难 nàn: calamity; disaster; adversity; take to task; blame.
窳 yǔ: <formal> corrupt; bad.
First Pass: Chapter of the Week
This chapter makes a bit more sense in the original Chinese than in D.C. Lao’s translation. I doubt I’ll do any better though. This is the curious side of attempting to convey knowing through words. There is also the peculiar effectiveness one language (here Chinese) can have over another (English here). Although, perhaps this isn’t really that unusual. Think of how the Eskimos have dozens of words to refer to the subtle characteristics of snow. In this case, the difference lies not in any unique Chinese words used in the original Tao Te Ching, but in its terseness. Maybe this reflects an ancient Chinese sense that more words obfuscates, i.e., To use words but rarely is to be natural. In Chinese, it is possible to say more with less words. (Correlations takes that even farther… alas, a leap to far for most.)
Is this saying that using more words is somehow less natural? Not exactly. Rather, the less we expect words to mean what they say, the more room we make for intuitive understanding. In other words, our attempts to hammer it to a point are less enlightening than groping around for the shape that has no shape. Saying less has the potential to convey more of the essence, if one already knows—at some level. This goes back to my view that we only truly understand cognitively what we already know intuitively (i.e., sub-thought).
Especially endearing to me is the view: Even though surrounded by jade and presented with horses, Not equal to receiving the way , or as D.C. Lau translated it, he who makes a present of the way without stirring from his seat is preferable to one who offers presents of jade disks followed by a team of four horses. Here is where ‘giving’ and ‘receiving’ truly produce each other. I set this in motion through impartiality. This means not passing judgment, but instead observing the myriad creatures (i.e., everything) in their own right. This is the only true present of the way I can offer, and in offering that I am receiving the way. Chapter 16 speaks beautifully to this experience…
On gifts, the Bhagavad Gita says this, “A gift is pure when it is given from the heart to the right person at the right time and at the right place, and when we expect nothing in return. But when it is given expecting something in return, or for the sake of a future reward, or when it is given unwillingly, the gift is of Rajas, impure“.
It really is the thought (or rather feeling) that counts, and for me, the ultimate gift is non-judgment. As Christ puts it, “Judge not, that ye be not judged (1). For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.”
(1) I imagine many Christians take this to mean God will judge us later in Heaven. I find it is immediate. Any judgments I make are only reflections of my own needs and fears. Being such, they are actually self-judgments. As needs and fears wane, I see and act more impartially. Seeing judgment for the two-way-street it is helps me be self honest: When I judge, I look inward to find what I am needing or fearing at the moment.