The Dao De Ching: A mediation
Chapter Forty-Nine
"The
sage does not have a constant heart/mind,
Thus
the 100 families’ heart/minds become his heart/mind.
He
who is virtuous, I am virtuous to him.
He
who is not virtuous, I am also virtuous to him.
Because
De is virtue.
He who is honest, I am honest with him.
He who is not honest, I am also honest with him.
Because De is honesty.
The
sage lives in the world, gathering it all in.
And
so he serves the world, merging with their
heart/minds.
The
100 families all pay attention to their ears and eyes,
And
the sage treats them all like his children."[1][CF1]
When asked to summarize all scientific knowledge in one simple
sentence, renowned physicist Richard Feynman said the following: "All things are made of atoms — little particles
that move around in perpetual motion, attracting each other when they are a
little distance apart, but repelling upon being squeezed into one another."[2] This sentence contains
incredible amounts of knowledge in it; however, for someone not versed in the
contemporary, atomic understanding of the world, it will seem a bit odd.
Moreover, imagine trying to understand this sentence while not being versed in
modern American English but as a speaker of Middle English. Now try to imagine
doing so while living in a society that is not influenced by American culture
in any relevant way. The task would seem nearly impossible[CF2] .
When approaching the Dao[CF3] De Ching, one faces a
similar situation. According to popular legend, the book was written as a
summary of Laozi[CF4] 's thought on the eve of
his retirement and self-imposed exile. Laozi didn’t[CF5] even have some strong
desire to write this book; rather, the guard at the western border forced him
to write down everything he knew before granting him passage. Chinese thought
and culture hadn’t had much influence on western thought and culture, and the
Chinese language that Laozi used is thousands of years removed from
contemporary Mandarin. With that said, there are echoes of Laozi's culture that
have reverberated throughout history all the way to the west in the 21st
century.
The Zen Buddhist tradition, which values Laozi's work and
continues his lines and forms of thought, has had bastions of influence in the
west for decades now. Zen-influenced monk Thich Nhat Hanh's interpretation of
the Heart Sutra[3]
has been particularly helpful in deciphering chapter forty-ninth of the Dao De
Ching, quoted above.
Laozi literally means The Old Teacher, and Dao De Ching means Book
of Way and Virtue.[4]
These general titles, combined with the book's obtuse style, have led many to
believe that the book has remained relevant simply due to it being a useful
mirror or Rorschach test. It is unclear and has a wise air too it; therefore,
it is simply used to promote or find some validation for one's own ideas. I
believe that while this cynical view has some truth to it, it misses the text's
important messages, which I'll try to communicate in the following paragraphs.
The chapter opens with the following: "The sage does not have
a constant heart/mind, / Thus the 100 families’ heart/minds become his
heart/mind."
The 100 families', in the
text's historical context, means what we would now call "The People."
The sage, a figure most akin to a Saint or a wise Tzadik, is a
fluctuating, moving character. He doesn’t have a constant, defining, trait. The
sage's nature is self-inconsistence. Essentially, the sage has no essence.
This self-inconsistence allows him to think collectively. The sage doesn’t see
herself as a singular mind inhabiting a body; rather, the sage sees herself as
part of a connected, broader whole, a product and a producer of a more general
nature and humanity.
The next verse is as follows:" He who is virtuous,
I am virtuous to him. / He who is not virtuous, I am also virtuous to him. /
Because De is virtue." The linguistic distance [CF6] is quite apparent in
this passage. As I demonstrated earlier, the word De itself can also be
translated as virtue. The sign for "virtuous" here is sometimes
translated as goodness, or good treatment. This linguistic confusion may be
deliberate, as Laozi frequently mocks simple good/bad dichotomies in moral
discourse.[5] Still, this verse seems to be
a call to treat all with goodness, even those who may not deserve it. Some
translators interpret the last line as meaning that universal good treatment is
a way to receive goodness.[6] One could interpret this verse as a simple
promise of reward for good behavior; however, this is not what the text suggests.
Placing this verse immediately after a verse describing the sage's
lack of a consistent self suggests a more complex perception of goodness and
deserving. A lack of consistent self negates the idea of deserving. If the
sage's heart/mind is a collective heart/mind, the sage cannot pick one
individual out of the collective and decide whether they deserve good
treatment. The sage, with her collective consideration, would see her treatment
of others as either adding or negating virtuous (or De-fitting) behavior to the
world. The individual who receives the sage's treatment seems practically
irrelevant. This interpretation is further supported by the following verse:
" He who is honest, I
am honest with him. / He who is not honest, I am also honest with him. /
Because De is honesty."
Here we have
further evidence that the sage sees his treatment of others as either
De-fitting or not, rather than an individual "deserving" said
behavior. There is, however, a linguistic conundrum here: some translate this
as believing people regardless of them having belief, or even faith.[7] This verse is particularly
hard to interpret in a practical manner: is it a call to constantly add the De
of honesty to the world, or is it a call to add the De of belief to the world?
This is where my aspirations to mediate this text have reached an impasse. Laozi
uses the verb structure of ancient Chinese to make this entire chapter deliberately [CF7] unclear as to who does
what, and it is most apparent in this verse. The way you interpret this verse
will change based on your perception of Laozi's spirit or general attitude. My
perception leans towards honesty, and that is exactly why I cannot present it
as some definitive interpretation.
With that said, all translations I consulted support the first
verse declaring the sage having no consistent heart/mind. This is distinct
evidence in support of any interpretation of this chapter that is based on a
lack of a consistent self.
"The sage
lives in the world, gathering it all in. / And so he serves the world, merging
with their / heart/minds." These seem to be instructions for achieving the
sage's collective consideration. According to one translation, the sage lives
in harmony with the world;[8] according to another, he
treats the world with great care and worry.[9] The text depicts a mindful
person who considers vast amounts of information when giving counsel. She both
clouds her mind,[10]
making herself somewhat mysterious, and merges her mind with a larger
collective. The sage's process in
servitude is internal, careful, mysterious, and considerate. It is hard to
imagine such a process being quick; it is even harder to imagine living in such
a manner. Still, the constituent traits of this process – mindfulness, harmony,
carefulness, and a broad scope of consideration – are virtues worthy of
implementation in our lives.
" The 100
families all pay attention to their ears and eyes, / And the sage treats them
all like his children." At first glance, this verse seems to suggest a
certain paternalistic treatment of the people by their sage. Nearly all Chinese
thought throughout the warring states periods reflects shades of paternalism,
and Laozi's thought supports an extremely paternalistic attitude towards the
common people. With that said, there is another aspect to this verse. One
translation suggests the final line of the chapter being a description of the
sage smiling to the people, like a happy baby.[11] Paternalism, absolutely; but
an extremely kind, gentle version of it.
I hope that in
this short text I have managed to give you a taste of the complex flavors of
the Dao De Ching, and have, in an indirect manner, made a case for its
relevance. I mentioned earlier the view that the Dao De Ching has remained
relevant merely due to it being vague enough to be used as an ideological
mirror or Rorschach test. The Dao De Ching is an effective ideological mirror;
however, the reason is not simple vagueness. The Dao De Ching reflects its
reader's opinions because of the multifaceted nature of its own thought and
language. However, multifaceted substance is not lack of substance. It is quite
the opposite.
[1]
Bruce R. Linnell (translator), Dao De Jing: A Minimalist Translation,
2015
[2]
The Feynman Lectures on Physics (1964)
[3]
Thich Nhat Hanh, The
Heart Of Understanding, Commentaries on the Prajnaparamita Heart Sutra,
Parallax Press, Berkely, 1987
[4]
Angus C. Graham, Disputers of the Dao, La Salle, 1989
[5]
For examples of this see chapters 2 and 5 of the Dao De Ching.
[7]
Dan Daor and Yoav Ariel (translators), The book of the Way and Virtue
with Wang Bi interpretation, Jerusalem 2007
[8]
G. Grause and H. Kalai 1983.
[9]
Dan Daor and Yoav Ariel 2007.
[10]
Dan Daor and Yoav Ariel 2007.
[11]
Dan Daor and Yoav Ariel 2007
[CF1]Provide a title for
your piece that reflects its essence
[CF2]Nice, effective opening
to mediation
[CF3]If we are mediating,
then some context is needed, in passing
[CF4]ditto
[CF5]The convention is to
avoid contracted forms in formal writing
[CF6]I don't understand
[CF7]How are his intentions
known?
Comments
Post a Comment