What do the bums think about this guys Taoist "principles"?

[Marblehead]

This line has been the one debated the most for close to two thousand years by Laozi scholars, and "straw dogs" is apparently just one understanding that prevailed in the course of these debates. The original characters actually mean "dogs and grass" --

 

Hi Taomeow,

 

I can't discuss this from your perspective. Hehehe. Hey! That's life.

 

"Straw Dogs" refer to the ceremonial animals that are used by the people during festivals.

 

The people create the 'straw dogs', use them for their purpose and then the straw dogs are discarded. No more need for them.

 

Tao creates all things (in a manner of speaking) for its purpose (no, I have no idea if there is a purpose for the universe) but when things are used for their purpose they are discarded. No need for them anymore.

 

The Sage interacts (yes, we could say uses but I don't like that) with people and when his/her interaction with them is used he discards them.

 

Now, this does not mean to suggest that the Sage doesn't care about the people they interact with - it is more at saying that they do not hold to the straw dogs (people) and becomes attached to them.

 

In the universe there is constant creation and destruction. Tao doesn't care about all the things that are destroyed. The old needs be destroyed for the new to be created.

 

The Sage understands that all things will pass. So they don't bother themselves with each manifestation. People are born - they serve their purpose and then die. The dead are the straw dogs.

 

The people don't worry about the straw dogs. If they were kept they would rot before the next festival. The straw is easy to collect and the 'dogs' are easy to make. The straw dogs served their purpose and they are left to rot.

 

Peae & Love!

[Taomeow]

"Straw Dogs" refer to the ceremonial animals that are used by the people during festivals.

Um... I know what ceremonial straw dogs are and how they are used, my whole point was, there's nothing in Laozi's context to finalize this reading of "dogs and grass." Not in the context and not in the reasoning.

 

The whole book is dedicated to pretty much one major assertion: that the human way has become different from nature's way and the sages' way, and that generally speaking, it's not a very bright idea. So a passage that asserts that nature and the sage don't do something the human way doesn't contradict this main premise, IMO. Or did you read TTC as glorification of how humans are wonderfully in accord with tao? It was read as a political pamphlet by many of its contemporaries, not as a work of philosophy at all. A proposed alternative choice of social behavior, revolutionary in its attempts to talk to the ruler rather than to the ruled. Laozi talks to the emperor, king, sovereign, father, man of power and authority, not to the powerless -- have you noticed?.. To understand what "not human" means to Laozi, one needs to consider what "human" means to him. A pat on the shoulder, an encouragement to do things the way we already do them? Hardly...

[forestofemptiness]

It would seem odd to me that if this were true, than Lao Tzu wouldn't have chosen a better way to express it, such as "ducks" and "flowers" or "trees" and "horses" rather than choose the two life forms that happen to stand for something very specific (i.e. the sacrificial straw dogs). In fact, if I had to randomly choose a color and animal to describe interpretation, I would call it a "red herring".

 

So "dogs and grass" are treated by nature, and by the sage emulating nature, a certain way. Which way is that? "Inhumane," "not the human way." What's the human way to treat dogs and grass?.. What's the nature's way to treat dogs and grass? Which way is closer to the sage's heart, the nature's way to treat them or the human way to treat them?

[Apech]

 

 

Let's recall that human behavior toward dogs is to subjugate them, turn them into servants or toys, and in China, as in many other parts of Asia, also eat them. Grass undergoes grassicide at human hands as a matter of routine, is divided into foods and weeds and conquered, and preferentially monocultured or exterminated. What is so wonderful about what humans do to dogs and grass that nature doesn't do to them? Nothing. What is wrong with the sage treating humans the way nature treats dogs and grass? Nothing.

 

 

Grassicide

 

If he had meant 'straw dogs' then would the text have been different?

Edited January 18, 2010 by apepch7

[taijilee]

Hi Sarah,

 

That is likely the work of Derek Lin. I respect Derek very much but do not always agree with his understanding.

 

This is one of those times. I think that the use of the word "unkind" in not what Lao Tzu intended to be understood.

 

I feel that perhaps "unconcerned" is a better word. Nature is unconcerned with the individual things of the universe when it follows its processes. This doesn't mean it is unkind. Many of us live our entire live without experiencing any unkindness from Nature.

 

Yes, Tao is unconcerned. It (all the various aspects of Tao) does what it needs to do.

 

The Sage is unconcerned. He/she does what they need to do. I am sure the Sage would help someone he/she came upon who was injured in an accident.

 

Even in the wildest of nature there is very little unkindness. Yes, the predator kills its pray. But it does not do it in an unkind manner. It always tries to make its kill swift and clean.

 

I have never seen a deer do an unkind act. Some higher apes do as well as some other animals. Humans do it often. But this is not the nature of Tao or of the universe.

 

So no, I don't like the use of the word "unkind" nor do I like the way it was explained where he says "...

harsh indifference towards all but a few loved ones."

 

Peace & Love!

 

 

Actually this is not the work of derek lin. I happen to hold him in high regards as he actually knows ancient chinese, and took great care to use the correct and accurate translations. Dereks version is as follows:

 

Heaven and Earth are impartial (1)

And regard myriad things as straw dogs

The sages are impartial

And regard people as straw dogs(2)

 

The space between Heaven and Earth

Is it not like a bellows?

Empty, and yet never exhausted

It moves, and produces more

 

Too many words hasten failure(3)

Cannot compare to keeping quiet(4)

 

In his commentary on this chapter he writes:

 

(1) The original chinese characters bu ren are often mistranslated as "ruthless" or "without compassion." This produces statements at odds with reality, because real-life sages are compassionate individuals- hardly ruthless.

 

The true meaning of bu ren is that the Tao does not play favorites. The rain waters weeds and orchids equally; the sun shines on everyone with the same brightness and warmth despite variations in individual merits. The sage, in emulating the Tao, also regards everyone in the same egalitarian light-none higher and none lower.

 

(2) Straw dogs are literally small dog figurines made from straw. They were used in ancient times for rituals, and then discarded after use. It is a striking metaphor when we consider how we are similiar to the straw dogs. we are here to go through the ritual called life; when the ritual is done there is no further use for the physical body, so it is discarded.

 

(3) "Too many words" here means too much bureaucracy, or too many rules and regulations.

 

(4) I have translated the last character, zhong, as "quiet." This can be confusing even to native Chinese speakers. According to the dictionary it means "middle" or "center." Thus, one may assume the last line has to do with centering oneself or holding on to the principle of moderation. This is probably not correct, because the previous line is not about the danger of extremes.

 

The real menaing of zhong, in ancient times and in this particular context, is silence. When we see how the maddening "noise" of complex bureaucracy and too many laws hasten failure, we would naturally want to reach for its opposite-the quietness of simplicity.

[Marblehead]

It was read as a political pamphlet by many of its contemporaries, not as a work of philosophy at all. A proposed alternative choice of social behavior, revolutionary in its attempts to talk to the ruler rather than to the ruled. Laozi talks to the emperor, king, sovereign, father, man of power and authority, not to the powerless -- have you noticed?.. To understand what "not human" means to Laozi, one needs to consider what "human" means to him. A pat on the shoulder, an encouragement to do things the way we already do them? Hardly...

 

Yes, I do agree with this idea. The larger part of the TTC has to do with how one should rule a nation, etc. But the true beauty of it is that nearly everything mentioned can be applied on the individual level as to how one should rule one's self.

 

Now, I'm not totally discarding your suggestion regarding 'dogs and grass' because the thoughts are valid. I just like the 'strawdogs' better since I have an understanding of it that I feel comfortable with.

 

And I do agree with you that "Nature's Way" pays no regard to the whims of we humans. We see this on almost a continuous basis.

 

Peace & Love!

 

 

Actually this is not the work of derek lin. I happen to hold him in high regards as he actually knows ancient chinese, and took great care to use the correct and accurate translations.

 

Hi Taijilee,

 

Thanks for defining that. Yes, I would not have been very happy had it been from Derek Lin.

 

The commentary you included help to clarify this subject we are now talking about.

 

And as a side note to all who read this, I am please that we are having these lovely discussions regarding the TCC and the many concepts presented by Lao Tzu. I also appreciate the envolvement from our Buddhist friends.

 

Thank you all!!!!!!!!!

 

Peace & Love!

[Taomeow]

It would seem odd to me that if this were true, than Lao Tzu wouldn't have chosen a better way to express it, such as "ducks" and "flowers" or "trees" and "horses" rather than choose the two life forms that happen to stand for something very specific (i.e. the sacrificial straw dogs). In fact, if I had to randomly choose a color and animal to describe interpretation, I would call it a "red herring".

Your red herring thinks he can tell a white elephant from a blue whale, while my pink panther eats yellow chickens for breakfast. There's a tradition of using certain animals metaphorically in Chinese culture, and the ones already taken couldn't serve the purpose. Ducks are symbols of love. Horses, of strength. Flowers, of medicine, sprouts, of alchemy, trees, of wisdom. Pigs and fishes, of successful procreation, gain, wealth and sexual gratification (unlike what Wilhelm thought, whose comment offers "stupidity," revealing his ignorance in the symbolic meaning of these animals. By the way "pigs and fishes" is not what the line of the I Ching translated as such by everybody and his brother means either, it means "pig-fish," a dolphin common to the Yellow river at the time and till a few years ago when it went extinct.) Dogs and grass, to my knowledge, don't have such narrow traditional symbolic meaning attached to them. Which is why they could be, quite within reason, used to mean what they actually mean, even though one of the things they could mean (not the first, not the second and not the third on the list of possibilities) could be, but wasn't necessarily, straw dogs.

 

Straw dogs, actually, don't make sense in the context at all. Sages don't use humans for sacrificial purposes. They just don't. Dogs and grass make sense. Straw dogs make about as much sense as the biblical rich man who would have to crawl through the eye of a needle to get to heaven. In the original, it was "gamal," the word meaning "a very thick rope," not "camal" meaning "camel," and it makes sense that the metaphor would refer to the difficulty of pulling a thick rope through the eye of a needle, yet everybody is stuck with the ridiculous camel with his perplexing eye-of-needle-crawling behavior never seen by anyone anywhere under any circumstances for two thousand years.

 

A red herring, in my family, means a cold appetizer of baked beets, potatoes and mayo over boneless herring. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

[Uncle Screwtape]

One thing about Derek is that if you disagree with him about his translation he will happily discuss it with you. He doesn't duck any questions.

 

Richard

Edited January 19, 2010 by Uncle Screwtape

[Apech]

Been thinking about straw dogs while the board was down:

 

 

 

I would be disappointed if 'straw dog' turned out to be wrong as Taomeow suggests - but only because I think it is a very useful image. I think there is a tendency to think that it just means 'worthless' because of its nature as a sacrificial image. But if you think about it this is not quite right. If it is the case that the 'straw dogs' were made as substitutes for real, possibly human, sacrifices then they are not entirely worthless since they at least fulfil the purpose for which they are made. The time at which they become worthless is when they have been used. Then having been offered up, they are trampled under foot and forgotten, or so we are told.

 

If they work as sacrifices, that is if they are acceptable to the gods, or thought to be so by those doing the offering then at that time they have value. I would compare this to holding in your hand a 100$ note say (I didn't say 100 GBP because you might think this is worthless anyway ha ha). The 100$ note is valuable because you can buy food, clothes or whatever with it, so if you look at it one way then it has face value. On the other hand if you look at it as an object - as a piece of paper with print on it it has almost no intrinsic value at all. The straw dog is a kind of unit of currency in the field of sacrifices - acceptable to both those who offer and the gods who are receiving the offering - but, like the 100$ note has no intrinsic value and is simply thrown away after use. Its worth is temporary and is not derived from its intrinsic nature but simply from the use to which it is put.

 

If you read TTC 5 in this way then you could say that heaven and earth having created the 10k things because of their temporary functional value have no investment in those things once this value has been exhausted and they become disposable. There is no sentiment about these things they arise and then fall away and that's how it is.

 

The sage deals with people in the same way. That is without sentiment. They come to him and he deals with them in a sage like manner. When they depart, they depart and the sage does not dwell on this or create any kind of attachment (sorry about the word with strong Buddhist connections I was trying to avoid it but it slipped in) to them as people.

 

This makes sense to me - but I bow to Taomeow on the translation thing cos my knowledge of Chinese language is precisely zero (well perhaps 0.0001).

[Marblehead]

Been thinking about straw dogs while the board was down:

 

This makes sense to me -

 

Well, I like what you just said.

 

Peace & Love!

[3bob]

Been thinking about straw dogs while the board was down:

 

 

 

I would be disappointed if 'straw dog' turned out to be wrong as Taomeow suggests - but only because I think it is a very useful image. I think there is a tendency to think that it just means 'worthless' because of its nature as a sacrificial image. But if you think about it this is not quite right. If it is the case that the 'straw dogs' were made as substitutes for real, possibly human, sacrifices then they are not entirely worthless since they at least fulfil the purpose for which they are made. The time at which they become worthless is when they have been used. Then having been offered up, they are trampled under foot and forgotten, or so we are told.

 

If they work as sacrifices, that is if they are acceptable to the gods, or thought to be so by those doing the offering then at that time they have value. I would compare this to holding in your hand a 100$ note say (I didn't say 100 GBP because you might think this is worthless anyway ha ha). The 100$ note is valuable because you can buy food, clothes or whatever with it, so if you look at it one way then it has face value. On the other hand if you look at it as an object - as a piece of paper with print on it it has almost no intrinsic value at all. The straw dog is a kind of unit of currency in the field of sacrifices - acceptable to both those who offer and the gods who are receiving the offering - but, like the 100$ note has no intrinsic value and is simply thrown away after use. Its worth is temporary and is not derived from its intrinsic nature but simply from the use to which it is put.

 

If you read TTC 5 in this way then you could say that heaven and earth having created the 10k things because of their temporary functional value have no investment in those things once this value has been exhausted and they become disposable. There is no sentiment about these things they arise and then fall away and that's how it is.

 

The sage deals with people in the same way. That is without sentiment. They come to him and he deals with them in a sage like manner. When they depart, they depart and the sage does not dwell on this or create any kind of attachment (sorry about the word with strong Buddhist connections I was trying to avoid it but it slipped in) to them as people.

 

This makes sense to me - but I bow to Taomeow on the translation thing cos my knowledge of Chinese language is precisely zero (well perhaps 0.0001).

 

A modification if you will? What is under One stays under the One, and in that sense nothing can be disposed of by the One. Thus all that is under the One is recycled in some way within the One. Only no-thing can go beyond the One.

[steve]

This line has been the one debated the most for close to two thousand years by Laozi scholars, and "straw dogs" is apparently just one understanding that prevailed in the course of these debates. The original characters actually mean "dogs and grass" --

in many contexts it would mean "straw dogs" but Laozi's context contains no indications that that's the case. (Chinese is nothing if not context-dependent.)

 

So "dogs and grass" are treated by nature, and by the sage emulating nature, a certain way. Which way is that? "Inhumane," "not the human way." What's the human way to treat dogs and grass?.. What's the nature's way to treat dogs and grass? Which way is closer to the sage's heart, the nature's way to treat them or the human way to treat them?

 

I would translate the line as follows:

 

Nature's behavior is not modeled on human behavior; it treats humans the way it treats dogs and grass.

Likewise, the sage's behavior is not modeled on human behavior; she treats humans the way she treats dogs and grass.

 

Let's recall that human behavior toward dogs is to subjugate them, turn them into servants or toys, and in China, as in many other parts of Asia, also eat them. Grass undergoes grassicide at human hands as a matter of routine, is divided into foods and weeds and conquered, and preferentially monocultured or exterminated. What is so wonderful about what humans do to dogs and grass that nature doesn't do to them? Nothing. What is wrong with the sage treating humans the way nature treats dogs and grass? Nothing.

 

Wonderful post taomeow!

 

I would like to see more of your Dao De Jing translations.

 

It's funny to see people refer to 'what Laozi intended' and so forth given that in all likelihood no such person existed.

Like the bible, the Dao De Jing is more likely a compendium of multiple authors and folk knowledge developed over a long period of time. To try and determine a given intention is meaningless.

 

Looking at the original characters as you have done, and coming up with an interpretation that is consistent with Daoist principles is much more valuable, IMO.

[Taomeow]

Wonderful post taomeow!

 

I would like to see more of your Dao De Jing translations.

 

It's funny to see people refer to 'what Laozi intended' and so forth given that in all likelihood no such person existed.

Like the bible, the Dao De Jing is more likely a compendium of multiple authors and folk knowledge developed over a long period of time. To try and determine a given intention is meaningless.

 

Looking at the original characters as you have done, and coming up with an interpretation that is consistent with Daoist principles is much more valuable, IMO.

Thanks, Steve F! Alas, my Chinese is very beginner-level, but the very reason I started learning it was that I looked at over 70 translations of TTC and they left me profoundly dissatisfied -- although I could sense the (what I perceived as) truths in the subtext resonating with my taoist practices but not with the translators' opinions. E.g., I read Chapter 15 as a superb taijiquan instructions manual, and it can't possibly be read this way by a translator who has no tjq training. Likewise, there's tons of alchemy embedded in the text, but a translator who doesn't practice that wouldn't notice. As usual, integration is the key. I would suggest that anyone who wants to get Laozi'a "philosophy" throw the Wen-tzu on the reading list, supposedly his oral teachings written down by a student. It's like an extended in-depth commentary on the lapidary statements of TTC.

 

You are correct thinking that TTC had predecessors -- the Yuandao is definitely one major source -- but I'm not sure about multiple authors. A crowd is always dumber than the smartest guy/gal in that crowd. It only takes one to get the ten thousand going. Having divine affiliations helps too.

[steve]

Thanks, Steve F! Alas, my Chinese is very beginner-level, but the very reason I started learning it was that I looked at over 70 translations of TTC and they left me profoundly dissatisfied -- although I could sense the (what I perceived as) truths in the subtext resonating with my taoist practices but not with the translators' opinions. E.g., I read Chapter 15 as a superb taijiquan instructions manual, and it can't possibly be read this way by a translator who has no tjq training. Likewise, there's tons of alchemy embedded in the text, but a translator who doesn't practice that wouldn't notice. As usual, integration is the key. I would suggest that anyone who wants to get Laozi'a "philosophy" throw the Wen-tzu on the reading list, supposedly his oral teachings written down by a student. It's like an extended in-depth commentary on the lapidary statements of TTC.

 

You are correct thinking that TTC had predecessors -- the Yuandao is definitely one major source -- but I'm not sure about multiple authors. A crowd is always dumber than the smartest guy/gal in that crowd. It only takes one to get the ten thousand going. Having divine affiliations helps too.

Similarly, I began learning a bit of Chinese to translate Taijiquan and related stuff for my Shiye (and for myself). I will have to take a look at Chapter 15!

[Tao99]

Looking at the original characters as you have done, and coming up with an interpretation that is consistent with Daoist principles is much more valuable, IMO.

 

Nobody is making up or adding words. Actually it's "cut grass" if you want to be literal.

 

Chapter 5 Line 1. 天地不仁，以萬物為芻狗﹔聖人不仁，以百姓為芻狗。天地之間，

 

芻 狗

 

芻 chu - cut grass, straw, hay

狗 gou - dog

 

Everyone in China knows what a 芻 狗, and what and how it was used. No bid deal or surprise there. Never was.

 

 

Taijilee summed up this chapter best, as it is understood in Taoism (thanks):

 

In his (Lin) commentary on this chapter he writes:

 

(1) The original chinese characters bu ren are often mistranslated as "ruthless" or "without compassion." This produces statements at odds with reality, because real-life sages are compassionate individuals- hardly ruthless.

 

The true meaning of bu ren is that the Tao does not play favorites. The rain waters weeds and orchids equally; the sun shines on everyone with the same brightness and warmth despite variations in individual merits. The sage, in emulating the Tao, also regards everyone in the same egalitarian light-none higher and none lower.

 

(2) Straw dogs are literally small dog figurines made from straw. They were used in ancient times for rituals, and then discarded after use. It is a striking metaphor when we consider how we are similiar to the straw dogs. we are here to go through the ritual called life; when the ritual is done there is no further use for the physical body, so it is discarded.

Edited January 21, 2010 by Tao99

[Apech]

Nobody is making up or adding words. Actually it's "cut grass" if you want to be literal.

 

Chapter 5 Line 1. 天地不仁，以萬物為芻狗﹔聖人不仁，以百姓為芻狗。天地之間，

 

芻 狗

 

芻 chu - cut grass, straw, hay

狗 gou - dog

 

Everyone in China knows what a 芻 狗, and what and how it was used. No bid deal or surprise there. Never was.

 

 

Taijilee summed up this chapter best, as it is understood in Taoism (thanks):

 

In his (Lin) commentary on this chapter he writes:

 

(1) The original chinese characters bu ren are often mistranslated as "ruthless" or "without compassion." This produces statements at odds with reality, because real-life sages are compassionate individuals- hardly ruthless.

 

The true meaning of bu ren is that the Tao does not play favorites. The rain waters weeds and orchids equally; the sun shines on everyone with the same brightness and warmth despite variations in individual merits. The sage, in emulating the Tao, also regards everyone in the same egalitarian light-none higher and none lower.

 

(2) Straw dogs are literally small dog figurines made from straw. They were used in ancient times for rituals, and then discarded after use. It is a striking metaphor when we consider how we are similiar to the straw dogs. we are here to go through the ritual called life; when the ritual is done there is no further use for the physical body, so it is discarded.

 

Thanks Tao99 that's really helpful.

 

 

By the way does everyone know about this website:

 

TTC translations

 

you can compare different translations easily.

Edited January 21, 2010 by apepch7

[Tao99]

Hey Apepch7. Thanks for the link.

 

Also, for those who don't know. You can browse the TTC chapter by chapter and see 29 different translations in line-by line comparisons. And read all 29 translations, line by line beside each other, or a single translation.

chapter index: http://www.wayist.org/ttc%20compared/indexchp.htm

author index: http://www.wayist.org/ttc%20compared/all_translations.htm

Also you can see all the actual Chinese characters, and get their literal meanings in the TTC here: http://www.yellowbridge.com/onlinelit/daodejing.php

Edited January 21, 2010 by Tao99

[Apech]

Hey Apepch7. Thanks for the link.

 

Also, for those who don't know. You can browse the TTC chapter by chapter and see 29 different translations in line-by line comparisons at http://www.wayist.org/ttc%20compared/indexchp.htm.

And read all 29 translations, line by line beside each other, or a single translation.

 

Also you can see all the actual Chinese characters, and get their literal meanings in the TTC here: http://www.yellowbridge.com/onlinelit/daodejing.php

 

Tao99,

 

Your first link doesn't work for me ... not sure why. Second looks good.

 

Cheers.

 

A.

 

[Tao99]

Thanks for lettin me know. This will work. Corrected it above too.

 

TTC chapter index: http://www.wayist.org/ttc%20compared/indexchp.htm

TTC author index: http://www.wayist.org/ttc%20compared/all_translations.htm

[Stigweard]

[Marblehead]

"The nature of the Universe is impartial,

It regards all things as equal.

The sage is also impartial,

He too regards all things as equal."

 

 

Well, I like that whether it is technically correct or not. Hehehe. I have always felt that 'impartial' was a much better word for this concept. Like the rain falls on all equally.

 

Peace & Love!

[Stigweard]

Well, I like that whether it is technically correct or not. Hehehe. I have always felt that 'impartial' was a much better word for this concept. Like the rain falls on all equally.

 

Peace & Love!

Exactly. Dao gives to all equally (i.e. birth) and likewise takes from all equally (i.e. death). It is only human emotion and feelings that will discriminate who is to be exalted and who is to be condemned.

[Taomeow]

[Stigweard]

That's close to my version which posits that nature and the sage "treat people, grass and dogs as equals."

 

In TCM, "buren" is associated with two conditions, depending on the overall context of their occurrence:

 

1. numbness of feeling and lack of empathy due to Hun shen obstruction;

2. detachment, as in a seasoned meditator, due to a stable balance achieved between all shens

 

Most translators assume nature and the sage suffer from the former, but I feel they are more like the latter. Personally I believe that most people who think they have accomplished buren-2 are really suffering from buren-1, and translators (and native speakers for that matter) are no exception -- I think a slant of understanding might be internally motivated by intimate knowledge of buren-1 state or buren-2 state. Real taoist sages I've met are highly emotional people. But then, I see nature as highly emotional too. This doesn't contradict buren-2 condition, IMO, where all emotions are present and going strong, not numb, but they are balanced, nothing is overblown or underblown, they manifest in direct proportion to the true inherent nature and quality of the situation and are neither excessive nor insufficient. Which results in equal treatment of humans, grass, dogs, all creatures great and small.

Agreed

[Apech]