The Compassionate Daoist vs. the Compassionate buddhist

[dawei]

Glad you enjoyed the article.

 

I also was inspired by something I heard her say:

 

Mountains / yang / 1 male

+

River valleys / yin / 1 female

=

The big copulation,

Spilling their sexual energy into each other.

 

Now there will never be a dull hike in my future.

 

The 'valley' was paramount in the neolithic settlements. Pooling waters; water moving... see the character

 

 

Later a man was added, knealing by the valley waters... breathing... Qi...

 

 

Later translated as "desire" in many chapters.... Not quite... Wong had a better grasp of it... bed time...

[Dagon]

Edited September 15, 2013 by Dagon

[steve]

Just starting to catch up on this thread...

 

 

(from one of my older posts)

 

Now I suspect that the chinese term used for compassion is slightly different from our western "compassion".
The etymology of "compassion" is Latin, meaning "co-suffering." More virtuous than simple empathy, compassion commonly gives rise to an active desire to alleviate another's suffering. It is often, though not inevitably, the key component in what manifests in the social context as altruism.(wikipedia).

But, I'm quite sure that there's no compassion amongst animals. They don't need compassion. They aren't lacking.

This is what Lao-Tzu said in chapter 5 of DaoTeChing.


天 地 不 仁 ，
以 万 物 为 刍 狗 ﹔
圣 人 不 仁 ，
以 百 姓 为 刍 狗 。
　 　
天 -->Heaven
地---> earth
不--->are not
仁---> humanity, goodness, compassion, perfect virtue

[...]

圣--->the sage
人--->man
不--->is not
仁--->humanity, goodness, compassion, perfect virtue

以---> to treat
百---> one hundred, moltitude
姓--->clan, families
为--->as
刍--->straw
狗--->dog

May I translate as "The sage is not human" or "The sage is not compassionate" ... because "he treats all human beings as straw dogs"?

 

I just found a few authoritative translations of these verses:

Heaven and earth are not humane; they regard all beings as straw dogs
Sages are not humane; they see all people as straw dogs.. (Cleary)

Nature is not humane. It treats all things like sacrificial objects.
The wise are not humane. They regard people like sacrificial objects. (Beck)

Heaven and Earth are not humane. They regard all things a straw dogs.
The sage is not humane. He regards all people as straw dogs. (Chan)

Heaven and Earth are not Good they treat the thousands of things like straw dogs
The Wise Person is not Good he treats the hundred clans like straw dogs. (La Fargue)

Heaven and earth do not act from (the impulse of) any wish to be benevolent; they deal with all things as the dogs of grass are dealt with.
The sages do not act from (any wish to be) benevolent; they deal with the people as the dogs of grass are dealt with. (Legge)

Nature is unkind: It treats the creation like sacrificial straw-dogs.
The Sage is unkind: He treats the people like sacrificial straw-dogs. (LinYutan)

 

One translation which I like is:

Heaven and earth are impartial; they see the 10,000 things as straw dogs.

The sage is not sentimental; he treats all people as straw dogs.

I'm not sure that this excerpt really relates to compassion, but rather non-duality.

While we can feel love and compassion and want to ease the suffering of others, the sage understands that individual lives come and go but that there is that from which they flow that is unborn/undying.

 

 

I think this is a good point, Wu Wei seems to be often misconstrued as a path rather than realization as well, imo.

 

Yes, and it is also sometimes misconstrued as a realization and not a path...

View and action are both necessary.

[Dagon]

Yes, and it is also sometimes misconstrued as a realization and not a path...

View and action are both necessary.

 

 

Exactly! View and action are both unecessary, and are therefore actionless.

 

[Cheshire Cat]

If we followed this line the we may end up saying animals don't have emotions (or certain emotions) and this argument begins to fall apart for me. The way our compassion manifests may not be exactly the way an animals might.

 

The statement that you quoted comes from one of my older views. I do believe that animals have emotions, but maybe the real difference is "how" we see sentient beings.

For humans, a lion and a deer are two sentient beings. A lion may consider a deer to be just "walking food", thinking of it as we think of our vegetables (carrots, etc...).

 

It seems, according to old stories in almost all religions, that animals respond to the compassion of great saints... so, maybe it's for real the "all-encompassing dharma"...

[Unlearner]

One translation which I like is:

Heaven and earth are impartial; they see the 10,000 things as straw dogs.

The sage is not sentimental; he treats all people as straw dogs.

I'm not sure that this excerpt really relates to compassion, but rather non-duality.

While we can feel love and compassion and want to ease the suffering of others, the sage understands that individual lives come and go but that there is that from which they flow that is unborn/undying.

 

I do not believe that sentimentality precedes compassion. Much of the Tao Teh Ching speaks of the sage governing and guiding the people. Why would the sage worry about such things if there were no compassion? Why would he not simply spend the rest of his life on the mountainside, letting the others run about and cause ado in their lives? While not spoken of directly, the Tao Teh Ching is rife with examples of acts of compassion performed by the sage; it simply points out how the sage manages his affairs without much ado. I think the latter part of Chapter 2 is an excellent example of this:

 

"Therefore, the Sage manages his affairs without ado,

And spreads his teaching without talking.

He denies nothing to the teeming things.

He rears them, but lays no claim to them.

He does his work, but sets no store by it.

He accomplishes his task, but does not dwell upon it.

And yet it is just because he does not dwell on it

That nobody can ever take it away from him"

 

(Trans: John C H Wu)

 

Whether you treat the people as straw-dogs, an act of compassion is still an act of compassion.

[Harmonious Emptiness]

One translation which I like is:

Heaven and earth are impartial; they see the 10,000 things as straw dogs.

The sage is not sentimental; he treats all people as straw dogs.

I'm not sure that this excerpt really relates to compassion, but rather non-duality.

While we can feel love and compassion and want to ease the suffering of others, the sage understands that individual lives come and go but that there is that from which they flow that is unborn/undying.

 

Hey Steve, do you know which translation this is from? I've been trying to find another translator (other than myself) who read it this way.

[steve]

Hey Steve, do you know which translation this is from? I've been trying to find another translator (other than myself) who read it this way.

 

I believe that is Jonathan Starr

[steve]

PS - another, very similar translation comes from Derek Lin. In fact, in his book he refers to the more 'negative' translations, (those that refer to Dao as 'unkind', etc...) as misinterpretations of the characters. I don't have the book handy to quote him but it's worth a peak for anyone interested in this.

[Marblehead]

Hi Steve,

 

Here is Jonathan Star's translation of Chapter 5:

 

　

Heaven and Earth have no preference

 

A man may choose one over another

but to Heaven and Earth all are the same

The high, the low, the great, the small ---

all are given light

all get a place to rest

 

The universe is like a bellows

It stays empty yet is never exhausted

It gives out yet always brings forth more

 

Man is not like this

When he blows out air like a bellows

he becomes exhausted

Man was not made to blow out air

He was made to sit quietly and find the truth within.

 

 

 

　

I would suggest that this is not only a translatiohn but also an interpretation.

 

 

And yes, Derek Lin does, in his notes, make the arguement that "... sages are compassionate individuals - hardly ruthless."

[Stosh]

The statement that you quoted comes from one of my older views. I do believe that animals have emotions, but maybe the real difference is "how" we see sentient beings.

For humans, a lion and a deer are two sentient beings. A lion may consider a deer to be just "walking food", thinking of it as we think of our vegetables (carrots, etc...).

 

It seems, according to old stories in almost all religions, that animals respond to the compassion of great saints... so, maybe it's for real the "all-encompassing dharma"...

That ,say lions, may respond to the compassion of saints is well known in every culture.

In the manner of lions they do respond ,

and eat the saints.

[Marblehead]

... they do respond , and eat the saints.

That has been known to happen.

 

It has also been known to happen that cannibals in different parts of the world ate them as well.

 

 

Reminded me, during WWII a bomber crew had to parachute from its disabled plane and landed on one of those islands where head-hunting and cannabalism was practiced but they lucked out big time because they knew about the war and had been visited by the Japanese who they hated very much so the enemy of their enemy became their friends and were very well cared for. (I got back to compassion. Hehehe.)

[xor]

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EBy69dRr04

 

[Stosh]

That has been known to happen.

 

It has also been known to happen that cannibals in different parts of the world ate them as well.

 

 

Reminded me, during WWII a bomber crew had to parachute from its disabled plane and landed on one of those islands where head-hunting and cannabalism was practiced but they lucked out big time because they knew about the war and had been visited by the Japanese who they hated very much so the enemy of their enemy became their friends and were very well cared for. (I got back to compassion. Hehehe.)

Nice try there Mh ,

 

but the idea, "the enemy of my enemy- is my friend"

strikes me as more 'natural virtue' than compassion.

but thats just my take on it .

From what I've read of such an instance, in New Guinea

the attitude about 'who their friends are' is still present even today on that issue.

Standing the test of time well.

Edited September 19, 2013 by Stosh

[Unlearner]

Hi Steve,

 

Here is Jonathan Star's translation of Chapter 5:

 

　

Heaven and Earth have no preference

 

A man may choose one over another

but to Heaven and Earth all are the same

The high, the low, the great, the small ---

all are given light

all get a place to rest

 

The universe is like a bellows

It stays empty yet is never exhausted

It gives out yet always brings forth more

 

Man is not like this

When he blows out air like a bellows

he becomes exhausted

Man was not made to blow out air

He was made to sit quietly and find the truth within.

 

 

 

　

I would suggest that this is not only a translatiohn but also an interpretation.

 

 

And yes, Derek Lin does, in his notes, make the arguement that "... sages are compassionate individuals - hardly ruthless."

 

That is a very interesting translation, and I would agree that there is a certain degree of interpretation to it, as I have never seen it written in those terms. However, I feel that it resonates quite well with the original message, especially with the last two lines; it seems to put more emphasis on the human element of this chapter.

[Marblehead]

Yeah, Vaina, it is wonderful seeing different species living in harmony. The thing about tigers and lions is that if they experience fear for whatever the reason their natural instincts will kick in. One never knows what will happen then.

Nice try there Mh ,

 

but the idea, "the enemy of my enemy- is my friend"

strikes me as more 'natural virtue' than compassion.

Well, I do at least get a little credit for trying. Hehehe. But then, if we consider that the natives shared their food and housing with them I would think that this could be considered compassionate.

That is a very interesting translation, and I would agree that there is a certain degree of interpretation to it, as I have never seen it written in those terms. However, I feel that it resonates quite well with the original message, especially with the last two lines; it seems to put more emphasis on the human element of this chapter.

Yeah, those last two lines would even make a Buddhist feel good.

[Stosh]

It COULD be.

[steve]

 

 

　

I would suggest that this is not only a translatiohn but also an interpretation.

 

 

Show me a translation of Chinese characters that is not an interpretation, please.

[Marblehead]

Show me a translation of Chinese characters that is not an interpretation, please.

You are trying to define "interpretation" too narrowly. Even the Chinese interpretate their written characters into mental concepts.

 

If it is not a literal translation it is an interpretation. This doesn't mean that after the literal translation has been done one cannot go through the translation and make it grammatically correct in the language it has been translated into.

 

To add to or subtract from the original that the translation is coming from is called an interpretation. You leave out what you don't like and add what you feel is missing.

 

There are members on this board who do a better job of translating the TTC than some of the published works I have seen.

[Unlearner]

Show me a translation of Chinese characters that is not an interpretation, please.

 

 

You are trying to define "interpretation" too narrowly. Even the Chinese interpretate their written characters into mental concepts.

 

If it is not a literal translation it is an interpretation. This doesn't mean that after the literal translation has been done one cannot go through the translation and make it grammatically correct in the language it has been translated into.

 

To add to or subtract from the original that the translation is coming from is called an interpretation. You leave out what you don't like and add what you feel is missing.

 

There are members on this board who do a better job of translating the TTC than some of the published works I have seen.

 

I feel like you are both seeing the same underlying idea but describing different facets of it, this idea of translation versus interpretation; perhaps we should take a moment to actually look at this idea itself.

 

On one hand, you have the idea of translating ideas from one language into another, which I'm sure we can all recognize is not always the easiest thing, as certain ideas exist in the language of a culture that are particular to that culture. In this case, we have not only separation of cultures in distance, but in time as well, which adds a completely new dimension to the complexity. Trying to translate ideas of an ancient Chinese philosopher into concepts that can be understood by a modern-day English-speaker can understand is like trying to describe what the color blue is to someone who was born blind; some degree of interpretation (and further commentary delving into the subtleties of this interpretation, most likely) will be required.

 

On the other hand, there is the more underlying idea of translating written language into mental concepts itself. After all, if written language were able to perfectly convey the precise ideas of an author to its reader, we would not need interpretation or explanation in the first place, and everyone who ever read the Tao Teh Ching would have a perfect idea of exactly what was meant by it when written. The Tao Teh Ching even recognizes this in the very first chapter: "Names can be named, but not the eternal name." Such is the limitation of language itself. In this way, we could even ask ourselves if there is such a thing as a "literal" interpretation. Of course there is in our idea of comparing a very loose translation to convey something to a strict, word-for-word translation of a text, but even the most literal translations cannot perfectly grasp the underlying meaning behind each word that was written by the original author, even to those of the original language. After all, as I pointed out before, there is still a very significant separation in time between the author and the reader, so a perfect translation from words to concepts even in the same language is still quite difficult to achieve.

[Stosh]

Trying to translate ideas of an ancient Chinese philosopher into concepts that can be understood by a modern-day English-speaker can understand is like trying to describe what the color blue is to someone who was born blind; some degree of interpretation

False.

Fact - is universal ,it doesnt depend on the subjective opions of some guy 2500 years ago ,

so no one can be said to be inherently blind to it.. Pretending all-most chinese speakers have some special understanding of the subject is boulderdash... and conclusively so ,unless you can show that all-most Chinese agree on the translations they do not. One can google up one hundred translations of Chapter one alone in under a minute all made by both chinese speakers and english speakers ,,, all different.

 

 

After all, as I pointed out before, there is still a very significant separation in time between the author and the reader, so a perfect translation from words to concepts even in the same language is still quite difficult to achieve

False

There is no such thing as a perfect translation because the audience always hears through a filter of what they have already accumulated .

[Unlearner]

Trying to translate ideas of an ancient Chinese philosopher into concepts that can be understood by a modern-day English-speaker can understand is like trying to describe what the color blue is to someone who was born blind; some degree of interpretation

False.

Fact - is universal ,it doesnt depend on the subjective opions of some guy 2500 years ago ,

so no one can be said to be inherently blind to it.. Pretending all-most chinese speakers have some special understanding of the subject is boulderdash... and conclusively so ,unless you can show that all-most Chinese agree on the translations they do not. One can google up one hundred translations of Chapter one alone in under a minute all made by both chinese speakers and english speakers ,,, all different.

 

 

After all, as I pointed out before, there is still a very significant separation in time between the author and the reader, so a perfect translation from words to concepts even in the same language is still quite difficult to achieve

False

There is no such thing as a perfect translation because the audience always hears through a filter of what they have already accumulated .

 

Good observations on both points, I very much agree. However, I feel that you are sort of off from what my points were aiming at. Yes, I used the Tao Teh Ching as an example, but my focus was more on the idea of nature of translations themselves. I don't particularly see where you find a contradiction based on your explanation, so I don't see why you are saying that I am false. I see where you disagreed with me on the first point, so yes perhaps that wasn't a perfect metaphor to use for this particular example, but I don't see exactly where the disagreement is in the second point. Perhaps the misunderstanding is simply based in that I try to not use extreme language. In any case, I will clarify by simply saying that I agree with your second point in that we do tend to read into things through our own experiences, so perfectly translating one persons ideas into language that another person can read to translate into the exact same ideas is not really something that can be done.

[ChiDragon]

Trying to translate ideas of an ancient Chinese philosopher into concepts that can be understood by a modern-day English-speaker can understand is like trying to describe what the color blue is to someone who was born blind; some degree of interpretation

False.

Fact - is universal ,it doesnt depend on the subjective opions of some guy 2500 years ago ,

so no one can be said to be inherently blind to it.. Pretending all-most chinese speakers have some special understanding of the subject is boulderdash... and conclusively so ,unless you can show that all-most Chinese agree on the translations they do not. One can google up one hundred translations of Chapter one alone in under a minute all made by both chinese speakers and english speakers ,,, all different.

 

 

After all, as I pointed out before, there is still a very significant separation in time between the author and the reader, so a perfect translation from words to concepts even in the same language is still quite difficult to achieve

False

There is no such thing as a perfect translation because the audience always hears through a filter of what they have already accumulated .

 

 

Fact - is universal ,it doesnt depend on the subjective opions of some guy 2500 years ago ,

so no one can be said to be inherently blind to it.. Pretending all-most chinese speakers have some special understanding of the subject is boulderdash... and conclusively so ,unless you can show that all-most Chinese agree on the translations they do not. One can google up one hundred translations of Chapter one alone in under a minute all made by both chinese speakers and english speakers ,,, all different.

False.

You cannot rely on all-most Chinese speakers to reach your conclusion. Nowadays, there is a general consensus among the knowledgeable native scholars with a very precisive philosophical, not religious, interpretation of Chapter One.

 

There is no such thing as a perfect translation because the audience always hears through a filter of what they have already accumulated .

False.

It was not the fault of the translation but the fualt of the readers with a false fiter in their ears.

 

 

[Dagon]

I think it is good to let go of tradition and beliefs attached to them if they are found to be inaccurate, why should you keep them?

[ChiDragon]

I think it is good to let go of tradition and beliefs attached to them if they are found to be inaccurate, why should you keep them?

 

Yes, only it they are found to be inaccurate.