Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Taoist Points of View Attract Who? Anarchists? Orangutans?
[Note: I italicize phrases I borrow from the chapter, and link to phrases I borrow from other chapters to help tie chapters together. While making it more tedious to read, :? the Tao Te Ching is best pondered in the context of the whole.]
The chapters fly by and here we are at the end again, and again I wonder why ‘Truthful words are not beautiful’? First, Beautiful anything always leaves out its [chref=2]ugly[/chref] counterpart. That’s alright, though it neglects the whole picture. Put another way, beautiful is simply that which makes me feel ‘good’; moreover, I know that [chref=2]the whole world recognizes the good as the good, yet this is only the bad[/chref]. In other words, allowing what I ‘like’ to inform my judgment on truth makes no sense. Beauty, being in the eye of the beholder, is ultimately biased by personal [chref=37]desire[/chref]. Alas, that is one of biology’s primary [chref=65]hoodwinks[/chref].
‘He who has wide learning does not know’ has long stumped me. As the years go by I can’t help but attain wider and wider learning. Now then, does the problem really reside in this wide learning, or how intensely I have (hold on to) this wide learning? The pitfall for ‘he who has wide learning’ must lie in the clinging to and the hiding behind wide learning. In the end, it is not what or how much I have that is telling, but how desperately I cling to what I have. In my traveling years I had a small shoulder bag with all my worldly possessions, yet I emotionally clung to it more than all property I ‘have’ today. The same applies to learning. Though my learning is wider today, I clung more to the narrower learning I had as a youth. It is not the ‘thing’, it is the [chref=46]covetous[/chref]-ness behind the thing that is determinative.
Now having the original Chinese to ponder puts the wide learning part of D.C. Lau’s translation in a broader and more subtle light. Abundant can be interpreted as meaning wide learning, but not necessarily. It is more [chref=14]indistinct and shadowy[/chref] now. It feels like knowing not abundant, abundant not knowing decouples knowing from quantity, i.e., we are biologically biased to often feel ‘more is better’. :roll:
I also prefer ‘The holy person does not accumulate. Already he considers people's own well-being his own’ over D.C. Lau’s. The original hints at why ‘The sage does not hoard’. Simply put, when I feel other people's own well-being my own, I [chref=33]know contentment[/chref]. When I’m content, I’m naturally not driven to hoard.
The more 'beautiful' translation:
True speech not beautiful.
Beautiful speech not true.
Goodness does not argue.
Argument is not goodness.
Knowing not abundant
Abundant not knowing.
The holy person does not accumulate.
Already he considers people's own well-being his own.
Already because of giving people's own well-being more.
Nature's way sharpens, yet does not harm.
The holy person's way acts, yet does not contend.
The less 'beautiful', literal translation:
true (trust; word) speech (word) not beautiful (pretty; good).
beautiful (pretty; good) speech (word) not true (trust; word).
goodness (kind; friendly) not argue (dispute; debate).
argue (dispute; debate) not goodness (kind; friendly).
knowing (realize; be aware of) not rich (abundant; plentiful; win; gain).
rich (abundant; plentiful; win; gain) not knowing (realize; be aware of).
sage (saint; holy; sacred) person not amass (store up; accumulate).
already (since; as) think (believe; consider) person one's own (personal) heal (recover) have.
already (since; as) use (according to; because of) give (get along) person one's own (personal) heal (recover) more (excessive).
sky (heaven; weather; nature) of way sharp (favorable; advantage) yet not evil (harm; destructive).
sage (saint; holy; sacred) person of way do (act; serve as; be) yet not contend (argue).
The chapters fly by and here we are at the end again, and again I wonder why ‘Truthful words are not beautiful’? First, Beautiful anything always leaves out its [chref=2]ugly[/chref] counterpart. That’s alright, though it neglects the whole picture. Put another way, beautiful is simply that which makes me feel ‘good’; moreover, I know that [chref=2]the whole world recognizes the good as the good, yet this is only the bad[/chref]. In other words, allowing what I ‘like’ to inform my judgment on truth makes no sense. Beauty, being in the eye of the beholder, is ultimately biased by personal [chref=37]desire[/chref]. Alas, that is one of biology’s primary [chref=65]hoodwinks[/chref].
‘He who has wide learning does not know’ has long stumped me. As the years go by I can’t help but attain wider and wider learning. Now then, does the problem really reside in this wide learning, or how intensely I have (hold on to) this wide learning? The pitfall for ‘he who has wide learning’ must lie in the clinging to and the hiding behind wide learning. In the end, it is not what or how much I have that is telling, but how desperately I cling to what I have. In my traveling years I had a small shoulder bag with all my worldly possessions, yet I emotionally clung to it more than all property I ‘have’ today. The same applies to learning. Though my learning is wider today, I clung more to the narrower learning I had as a youth. It is not the ‘thing’, it is the [chref=46]covetous[/chref]-ness behind the thing that is determinative.
Now having the original Chinese to ponder puts the wide learning part of D.C. Lau’s translation in a broader and more subtle light. Abundant can be interpreted as meaning wide learning, but not necessarily. It is more [chref=14]indistinct and shadowy[/chref] now. It feels like knowing not abundant, abundant not knowing decouples knowing from quantity, i.e., we are biologically biased to often feel ‘more is better’. :roll:
I also prefer ‘The holy person does not accumulate. Already he considers people's own well-being his own’ over D.C. Lau’s. The original hints at why ‘The sage does not hoard’. Simply put, when I feel other people's own well-being my own, I [chref=33]know contentment[/chref]. When I’m content, I’m naturally not driven to hoard.
The more 'beautiful' translation:
True speech not beautiful.
Beautiful speech not true.
Goodness does not argue.
Argument is not goodness.
Knowing not abundant
Abundant not knowing.
The holy person does not accumulate.
Already he considers people's own well-being his own.
Already because of giving people's own well-being more.
Nature's way sharpens, yet does not harm.
The holy person's way acts, yet does not contend.
The less 'beautiful', literal translation:
true (trust; word) speech (word) not beautiful (pretty; good).
beautiful (pretty; good) speech (word) not true (trust; word).
goodness (kind; friendly) not argue (dispute; debate).
argue (dispute; debate) not goodness (kind; friendly).
knowing (realize; be aware of) not rich (abundant; plentiful; win; gain).
rich (abundant; plentiful; win; gain) not knowing (realize; be aware of).
sage (saint; holy; sacred) person not amass (store up; accumulate).
already (since; as) think (believe; consider) person one's own (personal) heal (recover) have.
already (since; as) use (according to; because of) give (get along) person one's own (personal) heal (recover) more (excessive).
sky (heaven; weather; nature) of way sharp (favorable; advantage) yet not evil (harm; destructive).
sage (saint; holy; sacred) person of way do (act; serve as; be) yet not contend (argue).
Comments
What is more anarchistic than a ‘[chref=43]teaching that uses no words[/chref]’? Certainly, any teaching that uses words can be usurped by ‘experts’ or ‘leaders’ (the bane of anarchists) who then exert their influences. A teaching ‘of words’ begs authority figures to preach them, and followers of authority to follow along. The Tao Te Ching, with its message on not getting caught up in [chref=32]names[/chref] and [chref=23]words[/chref] would be the ideal ‘bible’ for the peaceful anarchist.
I’ve long viewed myself as a human with a somewhat orangutan-like personality (must be genetic :oops: ). Among the great apes, the orangutan best exemplifies a peaceful and anarchist nature. If orangutans could read, the Tao Te Ching would be one of their favorites I imagine.