TTC 49: the sage has borderline personality disorder?

[Everything]

[Everything]

Great post, although...

 

@Everything -

I don't think this is a bad translation at all.

However, like I posted in the topic on Tai Ji Quan and Yin-Yang, this is an experiential thing that can not be learned or expressed in words. When you actually feel that you are the whole thing, all of it, you will understand the chapter.

I don't mean that at all in an arrogant or demeaning way although I know it can come across that way.

I'm sorry if it does.

 

The Dao De...

 

 

... my $.02.

Yes, I get it. It is an emotional rollercoater ride and I have experienced it. I just don't see why this is a good thing. Lets say that we are in traffic and it frustrates us. Because we are boundless and cannot differentiate our "self" from traffic. So we suffer away energy towards that which is out of our boundary and out of our controll. We want the traffic to go faster! But nothing happens... That is connectedness with all things, it is similar to borderline disorder in its disability to see boundaries. It is the opposite of father warrio energies and to the extremes of a caring mother with no bounds. This is disharmony in my eyes. Fractured psychology, not integrated personality.

[fatguyslim]

The sage does not distinguish between himself and the world;

The needs of other people are as his own.

(this is understandable as Buddhist unity and compassion)

 

He is good to those who are good;

He is also good to those who are not good,

Thereby he is good.

 

(again, unconditional compassion)

 

He trusts those who are trustworthy;

He also trusts those who are not trustworthy,

Thereby he is trustworthy.

 

I've read this translated as having faith in the faithful as well as the unfaithful and by doing so he gains in good faith. Basically, always working towards the positive outcome, similar to how Jesus had faith in the worst sinners which allowed him to bring them into "the fold," seeing the good in everyone.

 

..edit... also relevant to this I think is that trust in the untrustworthy can make them more trustworthy. The thing with the sage, too, is that he doesn't really discriminate since his central integrity does not change, like the trigram of water -- solid yang line surrounded by two flexible yin lines = the center does not change though the outer is flexible. Next time you have to walk past a group of intimidation-addicts, hold "no-thought, no-mind" you'll probably find that they barely notice you. I think this is illustrative of the verse.)

 

The sage lives in harmony with the world,

And his mind is the world's mind.

So he nurtures the worlds of others

As a mother does her children.

 

(the sage does not put himself above others and so he nurtures others as he would his own children, or himself. He does not see himself as above anyone so he sympathizes and empathizes with them. Reading other verses will show that the sage would not succumb to extremes of sorrow, joy, or any other emotion, partially because extreme emotions deplete the spirit, cloud the mind, etc...)

 

I think Harmonious Emptiness explained it very well... "Everything" you just summed the chapter 41 for me

 

41. When Superior People Hear of the Way

 

When superior people hear of the Way,

They carry it out with diligence.

When middling people hear of the Way, it sometimes seems to be there, sometimes not.

When lesser people hear of the Way, they ridicule it greatly.

If they didn't laugh at it, it wouldn't be the Way.

So there are constructive sayings on this: The Way of illumination seems dark, the Way of advancement seems retiring, the Way of equality seems to categorize; higher virtue seems empty, great purity seems ignominious, broad virtue seems insufficient, constructive virtue seems careless.

Simple honesty seems changeable, great range has no boundaries, great vessels are finished late; the great sound has a rarefied tone, the great image has no form, the Way hides in namelessness.

Only the Way can enhance and perfect.

 

Please don't attack the text if you don't understand the meaning... I bet there is not even a single person on the forum who can say I know what is right and wrong, good and bad, true and false in this messed up 21st Century! Stop making examples and stop making judgements... DO YOU THINK GOOD AND BAD IS EASY TO FATHOM?

[manitou]

He (Sage) lives but expects nothing in return.

 

 

I think the sage takes everyone for what they are, good or bad. The sage sees the bad for the bad, only he reacts with love to the perceived bad. He knows that underlying all that manure is a pony. The sage is smart enough to know how much of himself to give....it is not a naivete that he still deals with those who are bad. He is capable of loving them regardless of what they are doing because he knows we are all One and that perceived bad person (the person you can't 'trust') is really just another phase of himself.

 

And when we say we can't trust someone? What do we really mean? Trust them to do what? Always see things our way? Always put our needs in front of his? That's not realistic. The sage knows that you can only Trust someeone to be themselves. By acquiring this type of vision, the sage knows exactly how to deal with each and every situation by Not-Doing. The ones whose intents are highly visible, those you can't 'trust', are the easiest to see coming. The sage knows what he's doing, and I wouldn't worry about his naivete for one minute.

[lienshan]

... Perhaps this translation is completely wrong.

The three corrections in bold are mine:

 

The sage does not distinguish between himself and the world;

The needs of other people are as his own.

 

He is good to those who are good;

He is also good to those who are not good, which is the goodness of Teh.

He trusts those who are trustworthy;

He also trusts those who are not trustworthy, which is the trustworthiness of Teh.

 

The sage unites, that's his influence everywhere.

And his mind is the world's mind.

So he nurtures the worlds of others

As a mother does her children.

 

The three are "subordinate noun clauses" according to the Mawangdui Tao Teh Ching,

where they are nominated as so by a grammatical "ye" character.

Edited July 10, 2011 by lienshan

[Oolong Rabbit]

[fatguyslim]

I think the sage takes everyone for what they are, good or bad. The sage sees the bad for the bad, only he reacts with love to the perceived bad. He knows that underlying all that manure is a pony. The sage is smart enough to know how much of himself to give....it is not a naivete that he still deals with those who are bad. He is capable of loving them regardless of what they are doing because he knows we are all One and that perceived bad person (the person you can't 'trust') is really just another phase of himself.

 

And when we say we can't trust someone? What do we really mean? Trust them to do what? Always see things our way? Always put our needs in front of his? That's not realistic. The sage knows that you can only Trust someeone to be themselves. By acquiring this type of vision, the sage knows exactly how to deal with each and every situation by Not-Doing. The ones whose intents are highly visible, those you can't 'trust', are the easiest to see coming. The sage knows what he's doing, and I wouldn't worry about his naivete for one minute.

 

Again what a nice way to describe it... Thank you

[Marblehead]

What do you mean in the format and where can I find the other chapter. I just copy pasted this from chinapage.com/gnl

I thought it woulden't be much diffrent from usual translations. There is also a chinese version on that page I think. Is that what you mean?

 

You are doing fine.

 

I was referring to the chapters in the TTC sub-forum.

 

You had something to say and you said it. That's good. A great discussion has followed. That's good too. I just prefer following the standard that Twinner started with presenting the chapters one at a time and discussing that chapter with any additions of other translations as the members wish to add for discussion.

 

You did great. Please don't take my comment as being critical.

[Everything]

You are doing fine.

 

I was referring to the chapters in the TTC sub-forum.

 

You had something to say and you said it. That's good. A great discussion has followed. That's good too. I just prefer following the standard that Twinner started with presenting the chapters one at a time and discussing that chapter with any additions of other translations as the members wish to add for discussion.

 

You did great. Please don't take my comment as being critical.

No, I don't mind if you're critical. I'm just curious about something you said that you would not comment on this topic because of the sub-forums? I'm kinda confused, gonna check sub-forums now ^^

[ChiDragon]

He is good to those who are good;

He is also good to those who are not good,

Thereby he is good.

 

善者吾善之。

不善者吾亦善之

德善。

 

Those whom are kind, I kind to them.

Those whom are not kind, I kind to them too.

It is the virtue of kindness.

Edited July 10, 2011 by ChiDragon

[steve]

But I do not own my intuition or my emotions or my body. I am not the one in control of my thoughts. I am a co-creator only.

Yeah, I like that, for me, "I" seems to be a lot like an echo which then becomes a memory which then takes credit as the doer.

[steve]

to quote myself from a similar recent topic (confusion with translation of the TTC, started by lienshan)

 

"The thing with a lot of wisdom teachings is that they will be intentionally vague because you have to see the answer for yourself. If you understand it literally then you can get confused, but if they can lead you to find the answer on your own then you will have a much better understanding and you'll actually be learning something. The vagueness is to deter people who aren't looking to experience it for themself, while allowing others to experience their own meaning rather than being a copy-cat. To do this, you may have to abandon learned notions of wisdom and your expertise of language, which will confuse the understanding in these situations"

Very nicely stated

[dawei]

I think the sage takes everyone for what they are, good or bad. The sage sees the bad for the bad, only he reacts with love to the perceived bad. He knows that underlying all that manure is a pony. The sage is smart enough to know how much of himself to give....it is not a naivete that he still deals with those who are bad. He is capable of loving them regardless of what they are doing because he knows we are all One and that perceived bad person (the person you can't 'trust') is really just another phase of himself.

 

And when we say we can't trust someone? What do we really mean? Trust them to do what? Always see things our way? Always put our needs in front of his? That's not realistic. The sage knows that you can only Trust someeone to be themselves. By acquiring this type of vision, the sage knows exactly how to deal with each and every situation by Not-Doing. The ones whose intents are highly visible, those you can't 'trust', are the easiest to see coming. The sage knows what he's doing, and I wouldn't worry about his naivete for one minute.

Yes, I agree and that was a good expansion on my inherent point; When the sage just lives, he expects nothing in return. This frees him from requiring or expecting or desiring. Life is lived on equal terms for all. All are a part of the manifold unfolding, so why treat them differently.

[steve]

[Aaron]

Hey, y'all. Here's the chapter 49 of Tao the Ching:

 

49.

The sage does not distinguish between himself and the world;

The needs of other people are as his own.

 

He is good to those who are good;

He is also good to those who are not good,

Thereby he is good.

He trusts those who are trustworthy;

He also trusts those who are not trustworthy,

Thereby he is trustworthy.

 

The sage lives in harmony with the world,

And his mind is the world's mind.

So he nurtures the worlds of others

As a mother does her children.

 

That was the chapter 49 of Tao Te Ching from chinapage.com/gnl

I am very confused with this chapter... Perhaps this translation is completely wrong.

 

First of all the sage is a title to strive for in Taoism, no? It says that the sage is good to those who are not good... Now I might think at this point that the sage has superior ethics and thus can still be good to bad people. For example, throwing a drug addict out of your house is considered tough love, so it is being good to those who are not good... Not accepting self-sabotaging behaviours from others.

Then it says the sage trusts those who cannot be trusted? What the hell is good about that. Thats like giving a gun to a criminal, being naïve...

Then the sage goes on living in harmony with the world, whereby he has no identity and no boundaries? Like a borderline patient? So when someone gets angry at him, he emmediatly gets sad like a little baby... He has no personal believes or realities and accepts realities from other people like a baby does to his parents? Then it goes on to say that the sage nurtures the worlds of others as a mother does her children? No... It sounds more like the sage gets nurtured by others as a child is nurtured by a mother...

 

I'm sorry if I'm wrong here, but I have to concluce according to this chapter that the sage, unfortunately, has borderline personality disorder, or boundary issues to the least... How can this be a good thing?

 

I would totally approve of such behaviour in times of love and passion, but not always! If that is the core behaviour of a sage it means he is simply an naïve child? No preferences, trusting other people even though they cannot be trusted... Actually, I think the sage is sabotaging himself there? Whats up with that?

 

Perhaps I'm totally delusioned to see the big picture here. I'd really appreciate it if someone else gave another perspective on this.

 

Thanks in advance

 

Hello Everything,

 

I'm sure plenty of people have already given you answers, but I thought I'd give you my understanding of this passage. What this passage talks about is Te, or High Virtue. The reason that the sage can be kind to the unkind and trust the untrustworthy is because of Te. Whoever translated this passage left out Te, or virtue, in the translation, thus you miss the overall meaning. I would recommend finding a different translation to read.

 

As far as Te goes, I'm sure after all the various threads regarding Te and Virture we've had, you already have a good understanding of what that is.

 

Aaron

Edited July 10, 2011 by Twinner

[Everything]

I think Harmonious Emptiness explained it very well... "Everything" you just summed the chapter 41 for me

 

 

 

Please don't attack the text if you don't understand the meaning... I bet there is not even a single person on the forum who can say I know what is right and wrong, good and bad, true and false in this messed up 21st Century! Stop making examples and stop making judgements... DO YOU THINK GOOD AND BAD IS EASY TO FATHOM?

I really am trying to reach more wise thoughts and believes. I'm not joking or making fun of anyone or insulting any text. These are my real authentic thoughts I write here. I try to write it as clearly as possible. The fact that this chapter reminds me of borderline disorder is not ment as an insult. I did it so that you can see where I'm at when it comes to the interpretation of this chapter. I've gotten alot of diffrent perspective that I am greatful for and Feel honored to be contemplating on these carefully written ideas.

 

I might be slow at understanding what you guys mean, but I wont give up and appreciate anyone whk challenges my believes. Thats what I'm here for in the first place.

[Everything]

I think the sage takes everyone for what they are, good or bad. The sage sees the bad for the bad, only he reacts with love to the perceived bad. He knows that underlying all that manure is a pony. The sage is smart enough to know how much of himself to give....it is not a naivete that he still deals with those who are bad. He is capable of loving them regardless of what they are doing because he knows we are all One and that perceived bad person (the person you can't 'trust') is really just another phase of himself.

 

And when we say we can't trust someone? What do we really mean? Trust them to do what? Always see things our way? Always put our needs in front of his? That's not realistic. The sage knows that you can only Trust someeone to be themselves. By acquiring this type of vision, the sage knows exactly how to deal with each and every situation by Not-Doing. The ones whose intents are highly visible, those you can't 'trust', are the easiest to see coming. The sage knows what he's doing, and I wouldn't worry about his naivete for one minute.

So how do you react with love to a bad person? I can't seem to feel good emotions towards a person who never gives me good emotions in return. I become intellectual with them and I actually become angry if I stay open for such people for too long. I can tolerate bad persons for eternity and I can act good towards them according to my ethics, but giving them love would be bad behaviour on my part according to my ethics. The very myth of vampires have existed for this reason. People share love and vampires drain your energy and never return any positive emotion. If you're out having a good time with people, sometimes people just keep whining and ruin the entire happiness and love for the entire group. What about that? But mostly how can you change your own emotions? How can the sage see beauty in ugly and love bad people?

 

Secondly, about trust. You say that the sage knows that he trust only in people being themselves. I actually do not trust that people will be themselves. I actually strongly believe that people change every single second. I don't see a constant self to lay trust upon, woulden't that be insanity? And if the sage does trust people to be themselves then why is it written that there is the untrustworthy? Why mention untrustworthy if according to the reality of the sage untrustworthyness doesn't exist?

 

I'm very curious and confused. So no need to answer all my questions if you don't want to. You guys have helped enough, I'll keep posting though. Maybe I'll understand it some day...

[Everything]

Hello Everything,

 

I'm sure plenty of people have already given you answers, but I thought I'd give you my understanding of this passage. What this passage talks about is Te, or High Virtue. The reason that the sage can be kind to the unkind and trust the untrustworthy is because of Te. Whoever translated this passage left out Te, or virtue, in the translation, thus you miss the overall meaning. I would recommend finding a different translation to read.

 

As far as Te goes, I'm sure after all the various threads regarding Te and Virture we've had, you already have a good understanding of what that is.

 

Aaron

Oh... So this is a bad translation afterall? I thought so...

 

Sorry though, don't know what te or virtue means exactly. Something about brightening your path? Or powering it.

[Everything]

The problem is that you are reading with your head instead of your heart. Read what the TTC says about learning. Then stop trying to read the TTC through the lense of modern pop psychology.

Do you mean I have to learn from how my heart reacts when I read this text with my head? I become curious, feel curiosity towards this text and excited to learn even.

[Everything]

The three corrections in bold are mine:

 

The sage does not distinguish between himself and the world;

The needs of other people are as his own.

 

He is good to those who are good;

He is also good to those who are not good, which is the goodness of Teh.

He trusts those who are trustworthy;

He also trusts those who are not trustworthy, which is the trustworthiness of Teh.

 

The sage unites, that's his influence everywhere.

And his mind is the world's mind.

So he nurtures the worlds of others

As a mother does her children.

 

The three are "subordinate noun clauses" according to the Mawangdui Tao Teh Ching,

where they are nominated as so by a grammatical "ye" character.

Unites the world but is not united with the world? That sounds much more rational.

I don't know about teh though. Have to look it up I guess. Not sure what it means

[steve]

I think the sage takes everyone for what they are, good or bad. The sage sees the bad for the bad, only he reacts with love to the perceived bad. He knows that underlying all that manure is a pony. The sage is smart enough to know how much of himself to give....it is not a naivete that he still deals with those who are bad. He is capable of loving them regardless of what they are doing because he knows we are all One and that perceived bad person (the person you can't 'trust') is really just another phase of himself.

 

And when we say we can't trust someone? What do we really mean? Trust them to do what? Always see things our way? Always put our needs in front of his? That's not realistic. The sage knows that you can only Trust someeone to be themselves. By acquiring this type of vision, the sage knows exactly how to deal with each and every situation by Not-Doing. The ones whose intents are highly visible, those you can't 'trust', are the easiest to see coming. The sage knows what he's doing, and I wouldn't worry about his naivete for one minute.

Beautifully said.

[Oolong Rabbit]

Do you mean I have to learn from how my heart reacts when I read this text with my head? I become curious, feel curiosity towards this text and excited to learn even.

 

Don't mentally over-process it. The pie is already baked, so do you keep putting it back in the oven?

 

not sure which translation this is from but:

 

chaper 48

 

Learning builds daily accumulation, but the practice of Tao builds daily simplification. Simplify and simplify, until all contamination from relative, contridictory thinking is eliminated. Then one does nothing, yet nothing is left undone. One who wins the world does so by not meddling with it. One who meddles with the world loses it.

[Everything]

What you describe is not a good thing, it is the suffering of the ego. The separate one.

When the commonality is experienced, that vanishes like smoke.

Because it's always OK. It is always there and well.

And empathy doesn't exist because empathy implies two.

And our little egos come and go and they're around to dance and play and laugh and cry and then they're gone.

So the whole time you were meant to just enjoy the music.

 

 

 

There is no one there to trust or distrust. Dao doesn't trust or distrust. It is just there, always changing, always unpredictable.

You are the environment, there is no boundary - that's the illusion. You are totally free because you don't exist.

The environment is free because you are boundless.

Let go of the chapter for a bit, you're fighting it.

No dude, I don't mind trying to understand. Its not a struggle in my eyes. I love challenging my believes and discussing such deep ideas.

 

Sonyou guys are saying to remove your boundary for it is the cause of suffering. Identity and boundaries are one and the same thing to me. Your identity is what limits you and forms your reality, your lens. I find it hard to believe that someone can live without a boundary or identity. Only a baby has no ego because a baby is not yet mature enough to decide. Making decision mean growth and exploring boundaries, getting a more solid boundary and more clear identity over time as we mature. A child depends on the identity of its mother or father, thus a child is boundless. How can a boundless person nurture? It seems that boundless persons get nurtured. Plus the boundless hero dies because he has not explored his boundary or limit and reborns as a warrior with an clear identity and limits in mythological stories. The hero story ends always when he gets the gitl because he has no identity and thus can not relate to the girl as a person.

 

Its not that I disapprove of the concept of egoless, I just don't understand the concept. How can one be egoless? Do we have to become a baby? Believe in nothing? Not hold dear to any ideas Or thougths? Isn't that faithless?

Edited July 10, 2011 by Everything

[Everything]

Don't mentally over-process it. The pie is already baked, so do you keep putting it back in the oven?

 

not sure which translation this is from but:

 

chaper 48

 

Learning builds daily accumulation, but the practice of Tao builds daily simplification. Simplify and simplify, until all contamination from relative, contridictory thinking is eliminated. Then one does nothing, yet nothing is left undone. One who wins the world does so by not meddling with it. One who meddles with the world loses it.

How do you suggest I read the translation. Simply accept it and not think about it? Have blind faith? I can do that, but then I would have blind faith in a misinterpreted version of the text, or does that not matter in TTC?

 

Also, I totally agree on simplifying things. In fact, math is the most simple and thus most powerful tool in science. Just look at technology today and how it all depends on the most simple formulas created by mathematicians and physicists.

 

This is my way of simplifying. I go think within the deep, as TTC suggests. Then I extract the core truths and try to fuse them together and abstract from it dense and pure value of truth. You must leave in order to return to simple. Go into the complex to return to the simple. Don't you agree?

[Marblehead]

Here is an interesting commentary on the chapter that might be of help:

 

http://www.centertao.org/tao-te-ching/carl/chapter-49/