Chapter 5 (original) (raw)
Translation
The universe is not benevolent, and all things serve as grass dogs (‘sacrificial lambs’).
The wise person is not benevolent, and the people serve as grass dogs.
Is not the space between heaven and earth like a bag?
Empty yet doesn’t submit, moves yet recovers from all its coming and going.
More speech counts as exceptionally limited; not in accord with keeping to the middle.
heaven and earth (world; universe) no (not) benevolent (humanity; sensitive), take… as (regard.. as) all things on earth do (act as) hay (fodder) dog (damned). 天地不仁，以万物为刍狗。_(tiān dì bù rén yĭ wàn wù wéi chú gŏu)_
sage (holy; sacred) human (man; people) no (not) benevolent (humanity; sensitive), take… as (regard.. as) common people do (act as) hay (fodder) dog (damned). 圣人不仁，以百姓为刍狗。_(shèng rén bù rén, yĭ băi xìng wéi chú gŏu)_
heaven and earth (world; universe) of between (among; space in between), its (it; that; such) just as (like) a bag (a pocket) key 乎 ( expresses doubt or wonder)? 天地之间，其犹橐钥乎？_(tiān dì zhī jiān, qí yóu tuó yào hū)_
void (emptiness) <conj.> and (yet, but) no (not) bend (bow; subdue; submit; in the wrong), move (stir; act) <conj.> and (yet, but) heal (recover; become) go or come out (exceed; go beyond; produce). 虚而不屈，动而愈出。_(xū ér bù qū, dòng ér yù chū)_
many (much; more) speech (word; say; talk) count (be reckoned as exceptionally) poor (poverty-stricken; limit; end), no (not) in compliance with (according to; like; as) guard (defend; keep watch; observe) center (middle; halfway between two extremes). 多言数穷，不如守中。_(duō yán shŭ qióng, bù rú shŏu zhōng)_
Fourth Pass: Chapter of the Month (pandemic era) 10/30/2020
Zoom on YouTube Recordings:
https://youtu.be/sCljBEkXsTw 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 universe is not benevolent, and all things serve as grass dogs (‘sacrificial lambs’).
Benevolence is essentially a social urge expressed between members of a group. The more closely a group member identifies with their group, the stronger the urge to be benevolent toward others of the group. This enhances the sense of connection and mutual trust, and thus we regard benevolence as a social ideal—a virtue. Simply put, benevolence serves a group-survival purpose. Indeed, we deem human characteristics virtuous precisely because they generally serve survival.
On the other hand, the universe has no such purpose, no ‘need to survive’. The universe has no group insiders or outsiders. Everything in existence serves a vital purpose for its particular moment, and then passes away to nothing. I think of it this way. Each of us are like a Christmas tree before Christmas. We are ‘special’; we are adorned with capacity of all sorts… until Christmas is over. Then we are compost.
This ruthless side of the universe, seemingly without purpose, frustrates and terrifies us. Our social instinct sets us up to feel a sense of fairness, of benevolence, of purpose, and we project this sense out into the universe. Indeed, what is a belief in ‘God’ other than our attempt to make the universe conform to our image of it? It is ironic that part of this belief has it that God created us in His image. Surely He is benevolent, we feel. When the reality of what is impinges on what we desire, desire usually wins the battle, although, not the war naturally. Note: Need + Thought = Desire… see Fear & Need Born in Nothing.
The wise person is not benevolent, and the people serve as grass dogs.
One of the more challenging aspects of human life is deciding how to satisfy the social urge to be benevolent and kind in a balance way. We seem to swing between the extremes, too much or too little, and spend only fleeting moments in the happy middle ground. As the last line of this chapter hints, we have difficulty keeping to the middle. One key I’ve found to improve my chances at this is what chapter 3 calls, Doing without doing, following without exception rules. Granted, this is not easy to understand. How does this relate to being not benevolent?
To sort out obscurity like this, it often helps to substitute key words for a process the Tao Te Ching portrays. For example, chapter 1 says, The name possible to express runs counter to the constant name. Here, when we substitute benevolence for name, we get: The [benevolence] possible to express runs counter to the constant [benevolence]. This pulls me deeper into the reality surrounding the word benevolence, and helps broaden its meaning beyond words.
Even better in the case with benevolent is to make a similar substitution in that last line from chapter 3, Doing without doing, following without exception rules. This should help deepen the meaning of Doing without doing as well. Simply substitute the word caring for doing. Note, this is a double substitution, as we will be switching out benevolent and doing for caring, i.e., caring is the active aspect of benevolence. This gives us Caring without caring, following without exception rules.
It is easy to see how going overboard on caring can lead to stress. Caring too much about anything beyond your direct control is asking for trouble. Yet, our abundance of empathy pulls us into caring deeply for much that is beyond our control. Caring without caring is perhaps our only gateway to deeper sanity and serenity. It comes down to allowing yourself to feel, but without these feelings driving your desire to act. Doesn’t this parallel chapter 1’s, Hence, normally without desire so as to observe its wonder. Normally having desire so as to observe its boundary?
The last phrase, Normally having desire so as to observe its boundary, suggest taking some action while keeping to the middle as best we can. The serenity prayer seems somewhat similar: “God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference”. The only hitch lies in the last part about wisdom. This line, Doing without doing, following without exception rules, shines light on the nature of wisdom.
Also note, The wise person is not benevolent is not saying the wise person is malevolent either. Benevolence and malevolence are polar opposites, which any wise person avoids. The wise person keeps to the middle, as the last line puts it. Above all isn’t that what makes a person wise? As noted above, benevolence has an agenda. The more universal your self-identity, the less influence any agenda can have upon you. You are giving up the small for the large, mortality for immortality. (See You are Immortal!)
Is not the space between heaven and earth like a bag? Empty yet doesn’t submit, moves yet recovers from all its coming and going.
Empty parallels chapter 4’s virtue of less. To reiterate, The way flushes and employs the virtue of ‘less’. Deep like the ancestor of every-thing. One tangible example of the mysterious coming and going is the behavior of particle physics with subatomic particles popping in and out of empty space. It’s a mysterious example of coming and going indeed! It indicates a far more profound side of nature, which our nervous system never evolved to perceive directly… and yet, we always sense the mystery at hand. And always rush to label it, to control it through naming.
On a more practical level, Empty yet doesn’t submit, moves yet recovers from all its coming and going tells us of nature’s infinite resilience. Fear drives in our human mind an instinctive need to be definitive, to have certainty; our impatient imagination then easily fosters an overly pessimistic view of life. As a result, we are constantly surprised by how ‘things bounce back’.
More speech counts as exceptionally limited; not in accord with keeping to the middle.
I’ve long realized that when I was speaking, I couldn’t truly be present. The noise of speaking, and its precursor thoughts, drowns out much of the subtler perceptions of which I’m capable. What I’m really doing when I speak, think or write, is drawing on memory to tell my story, with a future aim of arriving at some endpoint. The first line of chapter 1 says it all, The way possible to think, runs counter to the constant way.
Past and future dominate thought and speech, dimming awareness of the eternal flow of the middle. Keeping to the middle means devoting as much awareness as possible to the flow of time, not its so-called moments. Doesn’t this reveal the absurdity of ‘being in the moment’? What moment? There really is no such thing outside of our imagination’s need to pin down time in tick-tock moments.
Keeping to the middle comes more readily when ‘objective’ differences begin to blend, losing their grip on awareness. This allows a subjective sense of profound sameness to begin taking over awareness. Chapter 56 ends by offering us a somewhat inscrutable taste of this. Inscrutable? Certainly, for how else can we describe the indescribable?
Video Archive https://youtu.be/sCljBEkXsTw
Third Pass: Chapter of the Month 12/30/2016
Corrections?
None this time
Reflections:
The universe is not benevolent, and all things serve as grass dogs (‘sacrificial lambs’). The wise person is not benevolent, and the people serve as grass dogs.
The first question I’d ask is this: Does the universe have free will? Does it have intention; does it choose? That is a silly question, unless you believe in a God as being master of the universe. It still feels like a silly question. So, I assume the universe doesn’t have free will, intention, or choose what it wants.
If the universe has no free will, what does that say about the wise person? This chapter tells me that the wise person shares the same ‘universal nature’ as the universe, at least to the degree humanly possible. The universe and the wise person are impartial. Well, the universe is anyway. The wise person is as long as his self-interest doesn’t bias him. That leaves us to decide what free will, intention, and choice are, and what there role is. As I see it, free will (1) is merely a projected ideal of one’s self-interest… as is benevolence. Intention is the name of the game — it is either universal and impartial (2) or personal and biased.
Chapter 49 hints, The wise person is without ordinary intention. Takes the common people’s intention as his intention. I actually feel the ‘common people’ are also sage-like without ordinary intention, until their personal agenda pulls them back into their ordinary intention. That occurs when stirring emotions bias intention — plain and simple. That is just normal human nature. The trick I find is to at least be aware of and acknowledge whenever my emotions stir and bias becomes inevitable. Then, I can be both wise and common, so to speak. 😉
One final point in this idea that the wise person is not benevolent: It is important to know that the Tao Te Ching is not prescriptive; it is descriptive. Nevertheless, because we are always on the lookout for guidance, it is easy to misinterpret this, and feel it is a prescription for increasing wisdom, i.e., if you want to be a wise person, you ‘should’ try to be less benevolent. Such misinterpretation easily occurs when we need to control life and believe we have free choice, free will.
The highest benevolence is without benevolence
The Tao Te Ching hints that the highest virtue is without virtue and the highest benevolence is without benevolence. This may be a good example of, the way that can be spoken of this not the constant way. To paraphrase this disclaimer in relation to benevolence: The benevolence that could be spoken of is not the constant benevolence.
If nothing else, I see the Tao Te Ching aims at weaning the mind off its rigid dependence on word meaning. Once weaned, the mind is ready to ‘blow’… When your discernment penetrates the four quarters, Are you capable of not knowing anything? as D.C. Lau put it. More literally, chapter 10 says, When understanding reaches its full extent, can you know nothing?
Chapters 18, 19, and 38 offer more detail on benevolence.
When the great way is abandoned, there exists benevolent justice.#18
The Taoist Story
The reality of life is certainly not as convenient for us as our stories would like it to be. I imagine that is why we often bury our heads in the sand, so to speak. When our story offers us what we want, how can we resist? I recall ‘camping’ out in the middle of the Sahara Desert and contemplating life very seriously. That environment, like the open ocean, stimulates such musings. At that stage in my life, I found myself half-wishing I could just simply buy into a normal comforting religious story… just believe in something and move on. It is curious why one can’t do that. It looks like the story must choose us, or rather, something deeper than thought makes the connection. This must have something to do with a cognitive least common denominator — if that makes any sense. For me, the Taoist ‘story’ is attractive in how it reaches beyond the story… and invites me to come along. That’s why I call it the faith of last resort. I could just as easily call it the story of last resort.
The Bio Hoodwink
Is not the space between heaven and earth like a bag? Empty yet doesn’t submit, . . . . moves yet recovers from all its coming and going. More speech counts as exceptionally limited; . . . . not in accord with keeping to the middle.
Again, biology — the bio hoodwink — pushes and pulls us to play life’s game as Nature intends. Humanity cleverly circumvents whatever rules it can to further its own ideals and desires. Obviously, we are not as clever as we think we are. The joke is on us much of the time. Nature fools us into focusing on the ‘big’ forces in nature. Size and strength impress us viscerally. We commonly associate action with defense or strength for success. Focusing on the ‘space’ and appreciating its value doesn’t come naturally. We fear failure, weakness, loss, silence, death — space! Survival instincts push us forward to fill space with action and word. Chapter 16 points back to what we so easily ignore in our rush forward.
(1) It is not too far fetched to say, “True free will is without free will”. This correlates with Universal will, God’s will. It is impartial and without favoritism. Conversely, ‘normal’ free will is not free at all. It is bound to the self-interests driven by need and fear. Need and fear are not free. Need and fear originate in the will to survive.
‘True free will’ parallels the core of Buddha’s Fourth Truth, “There is salvation for him whose self disappears before truth, whose will is bent on what he ought to do, whose sole desire is the performance of his duty...” This brings us close to impartiality and without favoritism. It pretty much comes down to two ‘choices’ in life: what I want to do vs. what I ought to do. Core need determines which I end up doing. What I want rules the day unless or until some deeper necessity overrules those desires. No wonder we grab onto any thing that offers at least the illusion of permanence.
(2) The importance of impartiality cannot be overstated. Perfect impartiality is not humanly possible, but accepting impartiality as the ‘gold standard’ of reality and truth are humanly possible, at least as principle. In addition, accepting impartiality as the ‘gold standard’ of truth and reality offers considerable peace from a ‘dogma eat dogma’ world.
Second Pass: Work in Progress 12/21/2012
Issues:
I nudged line 5 a little closer to reality. Reality being that which uses fewer words, stays true to the literal, and still makes sense—it can be a tall order at times.
I’ve just upgraded Word for Word by underlining the ‘main meaning’ of each character which can help dual-character words standout better. I also included the pinyin (Mandarin) pronunciation for each line which gives a sense of the poetry (click the link to learn pinyin pronunciation rules). Line 5 for example, has two four character sets. The pinyin reveals the poetry.
duō yán shŭ qióng, bù rú shŏu zhōng
And here is the more tedious translation breakdown, which I translate as:
More speech counts as exceptionally limited; not in accord with keeping to the middle..
多 many (much; more)
言 speech (word; say; talk)
数 count (be reckoned as exceptionally)
穷 poor (poverty-stricken; limit; end),
不 no (not)
如 in compliance with (according to; like; as)
守 guard (defend; keep watch; observe)
中 center (middle; halfway between two extremes).
I would like to use the words ‘poverty-stricken’, as this coveys the exceptional poverty of speech (names, words, language, thinking). However, no doubt that would not come across because poverty is so strongly linked to the economic issues side of life.
It is odd how we think thought and its cousin speech can resolve life’s issues. I mean, why else would I keep posting? At least I recognize that it is a transitory thing—it solves the issue of the moment for a moment, only a moment. Then, it is ‘ground hog day’ again. Knowing this much at least helps me appreciate how ‘_More speech counts as exceptionally limited;_‘
Commentary:
Yes, The universe in not benevolent, and all things serve as grass dogs. Nature just goes about its business of being, i.e., ziran (1). It is ’empty’ of an agenda, desire, fear, and ulterior motives (as far as I can see). It doesn’t care about the individual atom, molecule, dog, human, tree,… myriad grass dogs all. It is about process; the more it works, the more comes out. It is passive in its objective, active in its coming and going. I believe people who worry about the extinction rates of species feel the wonder of this process, but also project their own sense of self onto the view, personalize it, overlook the constant, and loose impartiality. Nature sees the whole picture and never takes sides. In other words, from Nature’s point of view, how mankind (a species) is affecting other species is irrelevant. Nature doesn’t care about anything, but just to the integrity of its coming and going.
Nature embodies utmost reverence for all ‘things’, from the lowly atom to the latest Nobel Prize Laureate. Have utmost reverence for all (I do mean ALL) ends up down playing the importance of any particular individual. This is the all things serve as grass dogs’ part of the equation. Both are true, reverence and a ‘moving on’ disregard.
Like thinking, speech counts as exceptionally limited. Indeed, thought and speech are essentially the same, not even mysteriously the same. For some years, I took to memorizing (mental speech) a verse from the Tao Te Ching and/or the Bhagavad Gita daily. I eventually found that I could just recall the _‘feeling_‘ of the verse and not bother about reciting or even remembering the words.
I suppose this ‘_feeling_‘ was what I now refer to as ‘knowing’ (as opposed to understanding). I long understood what the scriptures were saying, I wanting to integrate them into my approach to life, to live them, but couldn’t. I ‘understood’ but didn’t know. My stopgap measure was to recite and memorize them. When I finally began to know it more intuitively, I could begin to let silent awareness (i.e., feeling, knowing) hold down the fort. Note: That was 40 years ago, yet knowing continues to deepens year after year, as well it should! This is the only true benefit of aging I’ve found, but well worth the price.
I suppose one main pitfall with speech (and thought) is how it allows us to easily rationalize (i.e., ‘prove’) the improvable. We then encase awareness in this fortress rational to shield self (ego) from feeling solitary, scant, pathetic.
Water has long been a useful spiritual metaphor. Here’s another angle on that: Thought feels very much like water flowing into bottomless space – the silent and void. So, to paraphrase, D.C. Lau’s chapter 5, Much thought leads inevitably to silence. Better to hold fast to the void. Ok, ok… just as soon as I finish this sentence.
Suggested Revision:
The universe in not benevolent, and all things serve as grass dogs. The wise person is not benevolent, and the people serve as grass dogs. Is not the space between heaven and earth is like a bag? Empty yet doesn’t submit, moves yet recovers from all its coming and going. More speech counts as exceptionally limited; not in accord with keeping to the middle.
(1) zi + ran (自+ 然) self; oneself; one’s own; certainly; of course; from; since + right; correct; so; like that. These together are ziran, which translates as: natural world; nature; naturally; in the ordinary course of events; of course; naturally. For me, this gives a deeper meaning to the word and the workings of “nature”.
First Pass: Chapter of the Week 11/24/2008
I use this and chapter 2 (i.e., beautiful, ugly, good, bad as ‘tell’ chapters. How a translation deals with them tells me how true to ‘the tao’ they are. The views expressed in both fly in the face of humanistic values. The God idea appeals to people for ‘he’ gives the universe’s cold impartiality a warm benevolent face lift. ‘He’ also gives us a stand-up father figure to follow. God makes a perfect tribal elder. ‘He’ is benevolent and a champion of the good and beautiful. J
Enough sarcasm already and how unlike keeping to the middle. On the other hand, a fellow’s got to have some fun. Taoist views certainly aren’t easy to swallow for anyone who feels a need to choose sides.