[TTC Study] Chapter 75 of the Tao Teh Ching

[Marblehead]

[XieJia]

the two last lines.

 

Edited October 3, 2011 by XieJia

[ChiDragon]

Chapter 75
1. The reason that the people are starving.
2. Because it was due to the high taxation from high above.
3. That was why they are hungry.
4. The reason that the people are difficult to rule,
5. Because there are intentional demands from high above.
6. That is why they are difficult to be ruled.
7. The reason that the people take death lightly,
8. It was because that they have to strive for their valuable life.
9. That is why they take death lightly.
10. Therefore, only those who have nothing to be strove for in life,
11. Then, it's better off than those who are living luxuriously.

第七十五章
1. 民 之 饑 ,
2. 以 其 上 食 稅 之 多 ,
3. 是 以 饑 。
4. 民 之 難 治 ,
5. 以 其 上 之 有 為 ,
6. 是 以 難 治 。
7. 民 之 輕 死 ,
8. 以 其上 求 生 之 厚 ,
9. 是 以 輕 死 。
10.夫 唯 無 以 生 為 者 ,
11.是 賢 於 貴 生 。

Edited February 4, 2013 by ChiDragon

[Marblehead]

the two last lines.

 

 

Hehehe. So you don't like those lines either, do you?

 

Edit

 

Actually, I like ChiDragon's working of the last two lines better than I do Henricks'.

 

Afterall, if living is such a freakin' burden it is understandable that one would have little fear of death.

 

And, of course, the reason life is such a burden is because of the demands the government places on the people.

Edited October 3, 2011 by Marblehead

[stan herman]

There's another way of considering Henricks' last 2 lines--in the Buddhist Abhidhama or the non-spoken Tao sense. From these perspectives the superior person places no special value on this life.

[ChiDragon]

There's another way of considering Henricks' last 2 lines--in the Buddhist Abhidhama or the non-spoken Tao sense. From these perspectives the superior person places no special value on this life.

 

Hi, Stan...

I like to follow your thoughts, but the Tao Te Ching is Taoist philosophy. Why would someone want to introduce Buddhism into it or "non-spoken Tao sense"...??? Who or what do you consider a "superior person" is...???

[XieJia]

Me thinks either

 

Lao Zi is having a sense of humor here or I got it so wrong.

 

If we look from the viewpoint of being the people here instead of the Governance here, (I think It could be read from both ways).

 

Noted that the MWD B text used different characters instead of 民 (min) or the Masses as we found in other versions.

 

 

人 ren - people (used for the first statement)

百生 bai sheng - hundred lives (used for the second statement)

民 min - Masses (Used for the last statement)

 

 

 

 

Edited October 4, 2011 by XieJia

[Marblehead]

Hi, Stan...

I like to follow your thoughts, but the Tao Te Ching is Taoist philosophy. Why would someone want to introduce Buddhism into it or "non-spoken Tao sense"...??? Who or what do you consider a "superior person" is...???

 

Hehehe. Don't you be asking Stan any questions. He does respond to questions asked of him.

 

(But I am happy to know that he is following the threads.)

[Marblehead]

Actually, Lao Tzu used this idea before, (can't remember the chapter) when he spoke to living for the self instead of living for the Self.

 

I think it is a comparison between our outer self and our inner Self.

 

The superior person lives for their Self.

[XieJia]

Guess the idea can be related by to the previous chapters we went through.

 

That of the Within and Without,

One type of people burns the Within for the Without.

The other uses the Without to nurture the Within.

[Marblehead]

That of the Within and Without,

One type of people burns the Within for the Without.

The other uses the Without to nurture the Within.

 

Yeah, and that begs the concept of cycles. We recieve a little from without, multiply it within and then have all the more to give back out. The more it is built upon the more there will be to return to the source.

 

Actually, both the above are selfish acts but they are for very different purposes and produce very different results.

[XieJia]

Actually, both the above are selfish acts but they are for very different purposes and produce very different results.

 

Agreed;

but the word 'self' is really ambiguous.

If one nurtures all, that all is still one?

 

The Selfish acts as really for the self is in diminishing the self,

The Selfish acts for the other is in accumulating the self.

All ambiguous.

 

Me knows nothing, merely just changing the words

 

 

[Marblehead]

Agreed;

but the word 'self' is really ambiguous.

If one nurtures all, that all is still one?

 

The Selfish acts as really for the self is in diminishing the self,

The Selfish acts for the other is in accumulating the self.

All ambiguous.

 

Me knows nothing, merely just changing the words

 

Well, you did good, I think.

 

I go through this same thing when using the word (concept) virtue.

[dawei]

There's another way of considering Henricks' last 2 lines--in the Buddhist Abhidhama or the non-spoken Tao sense. From these perspectives the superior person places no special value on this life.

IMO, this is generally the correct line of thinking for the last two lines and it encompasses the classic LZ opposite-pair juxtaposition: Placing no value on life is essentially placing the highest value on life.

 

Legge shows the opposition but doesn't really get the meaning:

Thus it is that to leave the subject of living altogether out of view is better than to set a high value on it.

 

His is a kind of acceptance that "less is best" theory. While this can be argued as a LZ idea, it still misses the point.

 

Ni says:

One who is a guardian of people and does nothing for his own life knows how to value all lives well.

 

While this is much closer he is embellishing the translation too far for me (ie: guardian).

 

Here is the early translation by Addiss & Lombardo which many follow:

 

Only those who do not strive after life Truly respect life.

 

It is the essence and simplicity stated here which is clear cut. But, IMO, it is the deeper thought caught by Hinton which is the point:

 

they who act without concern for life: it's a wisdom far beyond treasuring life.

 

I will share that Ta-Kao, whom I often find interesting, says:

Because they endevour to seek life; therefore they pay no heed to death.

 

He see a deeper juxtaposition as a 'life and death' comparison and therefore ties back to the previous line about death. I think this has some merit and consideration.

[Marblehead]

And here is one more that I think hits the concept well from Tam C. Gibbs:

 

Those who live life without striving are exemplars of valuing life.

[Apech]

In other words, the reasons for the common folk indulging in deviant behavior and the reasons for the government ending in chaos always stem from the ruler and never stem from the subjects. The common folk model themselves on their ruler.

 

Wang Bi commentary on this section.

 

The last two lines mean that because of the example set by the (bad) ruler people start to take life lightly (i.e. without proper regard and respect) and behave badly ... i.e. greedy, uncaring an violent.