Lao Tzu (Lao Zi), the legendary writer of Tao Te Ching (Dao De Jing), who rode a water buffalo when leaving the Emperor's court after growing tired of politics. Before leaving China, he wrote Tao Te Ching on the request of a guardsman at the Chinese border.
     Below is a translation and explanation, chapter by chapter, of the Tao Te Ching, made by Swedish historian of ideas Stefan Stenudd. This is an ongoing work, so the chapters (81 in total) will be published as they are written.

Tao Te Ching

by Lao Tzu
Translated and explained by Stefan Stenudd, 2008.
  1   2   3  4   5   6  7   8   9

 

2        Don’t split the unity!

When everyone in the world sees beauty, then ugly exists.

When everyone sees good, then bad exists.

Therefore:

What is and what is not create each other.

Difficult and easy complement each other.

Tall and short shape each other.

High and low rest on each other.

Voice and tone blend with each other.

First and last follow each other.

So, the sapient walks around doing nothing, and teaches without speaking.

All things appear, but he makes no claim on them.

He works for them without making them dependent.

He claims no honor for his deed.

Because he claims no honor, he will never be dishonored.

Don’t split the unity!

Lao Tzu continues in the second chapter by presenting a consequence of what he stated in the first chapter: Because the opposites of existence are united in a necessary whole, it is detrimental to try and separate them – either in deed or in value.

            The unity of opposites makes up the world. We should not call one good and the other bad. There is no point in telling them apart at all, since they cannot exist divided. Nor do they make any sense when separated from each other.

            Certainly, we appreciate some things more than others, but we must remember that we are able to do so only because we can compare them. The ugly is the mirror of the beautiful. So, who can say that beauty is only within the latter? That is why we are unable to find complete consensus about which is which. What one of us regards as beautiful, another will be indifferent to. It is even so that each of us changes the way we see things, from moment to moment, and from one perspective to the other.

            Beauty is no object in itself, but merely the impression of one. It is in the eye of the beholder, and not a fixed quality of that which is beheld. So, we should treat our preferences with the appropriate modesty. And we should learn to appreciate the beauty in the ugly, as well as the ugly in the beauty. None exists without the other, and both exist within each other.

            We hasten to call some things good and others bad, but fail to recognize that such opposites are also deeply dependent on one another — and judging between them has little meaning. The prickled stem leads up to the flower of the rose. A forest is rejuvenated by fire, as is the soil by the turn of the seasons. Night brings repose from day, and death gives room for new life. One is in need of the other.

            Even when it comes to human deeds, judging them as good or bad is a risky business for the most experienced judge, as well as for a jury of twelve. There is rarely just one person responsible for a series of events, and within that person there are sure to be many contradictions. So, trying to decide on the character of a person in terms of good and bad is even less likely to succeed.

            We are more complex than any book can cover. No one is simply good or bad. Both are inside of us, and in a multitude of nuances. Any personality is a mystery beyond explanation. We can only observe the actions by which that personality expresses itself.

            What we do is the result of a series of events and reasons, only few of them at our control. Most of our actions are not ones of choice, but of necessity. We stumble into them, or we are pushed. Certainly we are still responsible for our deeds, but there is no point in judging them as good or bad. That only interferes with our ability to counteract them if needed, or support them if wanted.

            Not to mention the problem of what is good for one but bad for another. That is mostly the case. Therefore, modern philosophers prefer to discuss ethics in quantities: what is good for most people, or what is more good to one than it is bad to another, and so on. There is rarely an objective truth to be found, or a value that everyone can share.

            Mostly, good and bad are in the hands of those who have power. They decide what is good for all, or bad for all – and that is usually what is good or bad for themselves. Lao Tzu has more to say about that, later in Tao Te Ching.

            Deeds of people may force us to react or counteract, but we are not helped much by defining those deeds morally, or even deciding on moral standards for all.

            We make rules to bring a working order to society, and to push society in the direction we want it to develop. We follow these rules when we can, and break them when cannot constrain ourselves. The rules stipulate what the consequences of breaking them should be. That’s all fair and square. There is no need to add a moral judgement to the legal one. For that, we simply do not have enough information. And if we allow morals to influence our judgements, we are unable to be objective. Then there is a risk that the judgement of a deed is far worse than the deed itself.

            So, the sapient refrains from judging. He is very hesitant to interfere, or to insist that his opinion should be respected. He is reluctant to lead, and refuses to be followed. He is an example without pointing it out. Since he never puts himself above others, they find no reason to rebuke him.

            Lao Tzu frequently mentions the sapient, sheng-jen, in the Tao Te Ching. It is often translated ‘the sage’ or ‘superior man’, but I find that the word ‘sapient’ comes the closest to the word Lao Tzu uses. Sheng-jen is someone with a refined spirit, excellent manners towards fellow men, and modesty about his place in the world.

            The word sheng is written with a sign that contains three parts: an eye, a mouth, and the sign for king or sovereign. Someone who sees and speaks beyond the perspective of common men. An elevated mind. It is closer to what we call reason than to wisdom, knowledge, and the like. Lao Tzu has little respect for the ones who call themselves wise. Instead, he stresses the superiority of simple reason, close to what we call common sense. To Lao Tzu, the sapient is someone who excels at common sense.

            We will learn more about what Lao Tzu regards as sapient in the following. He used the expression more than thirty times in the Tao Te Ching.

            The Chinese text rarely specifies gender, either regarding the sapient or other characters referred to. In the English language this would get awkward to copy, so I have had to give it up on several occasions. In such cases I have chosen the male gender, just because the tradition of its use in such a context makes it slightly more neutral than the opposite sex. So, please regard any ‘he’ in the text as ‘he or she’.

© Stefan Stenudd

Search Amazon for other versions of Tao Te Ching:

Stefan Stenudd 2008

Express your view, with grades and/or your own words.

Your name:
Your email:

Grade:
1 boring
2 nothing special
3 ok
4 stimulating
5 fascinating

RESPONSE: