It always struck me how much of the writing is dedicated to statecraft. — Isaac

Yes, that's true. And, no. I don't think it's intended to be allegorical at all. I think maybe Lao Tzu considered those verses the most important. Some people think his political views are authoritarian. The TTC says things like:

• The Master leads by emptying people's minds
• Throw away holiness and wisdom and people will be a hundred times happier. Throw away morality and justice and people will do the right thing.
• If powerful men and women could remain centered in the Tao...all people would be at peace.
• If powerful men and women could center themselves in it...people would be content with their simple, everyday lives, in harmony, and free of desire.
• The ancient Masters didn't try to educate the people, but kindly taught them to not-know.

I don't think these are authoritarian, but they are definitely paternalistic. We're not talking about democracy here. I like this one in particular - Verse 80 from Mitchell:

If a country is governed wisely,
its inhabitants will be content.
They enjoy the labor of their hands
and don't waste time inventing
labor-saving machines.
Since they dearly love their homes,
they aren't interested in travel.
There may be a few wagons and boats,
but these don't go anywhere.
There may be an arsenal of weapons,
but nobody ever uses them.
People enjoy their food,
take pleasure in being with their families,
spend weekends working in their gardens,
delight in the doings of the neighborhood.
And even though the next country is so close
that people can hear its roosters crowing and its dogs barking,
they are content to die of old age
without ever having gone to see it.

I like that verse and it makes me think, but it also reminds me of "keep them barefoot and pregnant and in the kitchen."

All in all, the political verses are not my favorites.

There is nothing to understand. — synthesis

I don't think understanding is what's needed, but most people can't get where Lao Tzu is going without trying to understand. It's trying and failing to understand that leads to the mystery.

I sing this to my stonemason knees when they complain: — Valentinus

DC Lau's translation is one we used a lot in my reading group. I like it. This is a verse I haven't really thought about a lot, but I think it's an important one. I do plan to come back to it as I go through the verses.

If you have more to say about it, go ahead. You don't need to wait till I come to it.

It's trying and failing to understand that leads to the mystery. — T Clark

Great masters like Lao Tu were able to bridge the knowable and the unknowable as a way of pointing to The Truth.

It is interesting to note that 2500 years later, his work is still the second most popularly read book in the world after the Christian bible. I know I have read it no less than 100 times!

It is interesting to note that 2500 years later, his work is still the second most popularly read book in the world after the Christian bible. I know I have read it no less than 100 times! — synthesis

And, as I keep telling people - you can read it in an hour.

Right from around 50ish, we get a lot of, essentially, advice about how to govern. Is that too simplistic a reading, is it meant to be allegorical, or is he literally speaking to governors and generals? — Isaac

I think it is both in the sense that the "Empire" is presented as a condition that involves all those who participate in it rather than a result of a specific class pursuing articulated ends. The Tao Te Ching can be read as a conversation with the Analects of Confucius in this regard. There are agreements and disagreements between the two but they share a sensibility regarding the defects of Draconian approaches to order. Consider line 2:3 followed by Muller's comment:

[2:1] The Master said: “If you govern with the power of your virtue, you will be like the North Star. It just stays in its place while all the other stars position themselves around it.”

[Comment] This is the Analects' first statement on government. Scholars of Chinese thought have commonly placed great emphasis on a supposed radical distinction between Confucian “authoritative” government and Daoist “laissez-faire” government. But numerous Confucian passages such as this which suggest of the ruler's governance by a mere attunement with an inner principle of goodness, without unnecessary external action, quite like the Daoist wu-wei are far more numerous than has been noted. This is one good reason for us to be careful when making the commonplace Confucian/Daoist generalizations without qualification. — Translated by A. Charles Muller

Ok, Verse 2. Stephen Mitchell. Again – this is what it means to me, not what it means. Verse text – italics; My thoughts – normal text.

When people see some things as beautiful,
other things become ugly.
When people see some things as good,
other things become bad.

I am ambivalent about this stanza. Maybe I mean confused. You can’t have good without bad. Heaven needs a hell. All the value judgments we make in the world seem to depend on a choice between two opposites. Those opposites are… artificial…unnecessary…misleading? If we are seeing the Tao without words, there are no distinctions between good and bad, large and small, etc. I’ve wondered if the dualistic distinctions don’t reflect the structure of our brains and minds. A world of yes/no distinctions is simpler and easier to process than one of unbroken continuity. We’re digital.

How does this fit into the conceptual framework of the 10,000 things – the named multiplicity of reality? Identifying things as trees, roller skates, and electrons is not a dualistic distinction. Are the dualistic and non-dualistic distinctions the same or different in some fundamental way?

Being and non-being create each other.
Difficult and easy support each other.
Long and short define each other.
High and low depend on each other.
Before and after follow each other.

This really goes along with the previous stanza. I break it out because it’s the first time being and non-being are discussed. To me, being and non-being are very central. In oversimple terms – Non-being = Tao; Being = 10,000 Things. That opens the question – does the Tao exist? In any dictionary I looked in, “being” and “existence” are used in each other’s definitions. The question of what existence is is at the heart of the “mystery” of the Tao.

Therefore the Master
acts without doing anything
and teaches without saying anything.
Things arise and she lets them come;
things disappear and she lets them go.
She has but doesn't possess,
acts but doesn't expect.
When her work is done, she forgets it.
That is why it lasts forever.

Acting without doing anything comes up a lot in the TTC. It’s at the heart of how the Tao connects to human action. It’s called "wu wei." Pronounced something like woo way. It’s not too hard to understand if you try to become aware of your own internal experience when you intend or do something. It definitely contradicts the prevalent view that our actions are consciously intended and planned. In the TTC, conscious action is seen as degraded from wu wei. I agree strongly. When I look inside, I find that very few of my actions grow out of consciousness. Consciousness interferes with action – stops it or modifies it – but doesn’t create it.

To me, being and non-being are very central. In oversimple terms – Non-being = Tao; Being = 10,000 Things. — T Clark

I read the importance of wu wei as recognizing that there is a process underway that is generated by the play of opposites but does not consume the opposed elements that keep reproducing the things that are. So whatever the Tao might be, it is something that establishes that outcome rather than a product of it. The reason it is difficult to talk about such a factor is that we talk about absolutely every thing else in a different way. So, to the extent we can draw a distinction between being and non-being, the Tao is elsewhere. Instead of waiting for a Godel to show up to bust up the complete set idea, this view excludes that as a possibility from the get go. I don't agree that "consciousness interferes with action." I think it is more like "talking about action" interferes with consciousness.

One quality about the "10,000 things" that has always fascinated me is that it is a finite number. Saying there is a very large number of beings around one is different than saying there is an infinity nobody could find their place amongst.

When people see some things as beautiful,
other things become ugly.
When people see some things as good,
other things become bad.

I am ambivalent about this stanza. Maybe I mean confused. — T Clark

I wonder if this means in choosing to think a thing good or bad, you create a reversal by this very thought action. Maybe it means that the more you conceptualize life along these lines, the more you create its opposition. Do not actively label may be a better approach. In a way, this sits alongside Hamlet's 'for there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so'.

Thank you for the invitation.
Being a "worn" person of much experience but little wisdom, I have long heard this verse as addressed to me as one "who does things" in a tutorial about not doing some things; recognizing my worth but asking more from me.

The Tao Te Ching can be read as a conversation with the Analects of Confucius in this regard. There are agreements and disagreements between the two but they share a sensibility regarding the defects of Draconian approaches to order. — Valentinus

I have not read Confucius. I probably should. When I've discussed it with others who have read him they have claimed, as you and Muller indicate, that Lao Tzu is sometimes considered the "anti-Confucius." That the TTC was written specifically as a response to him.

Objective reality and the Tao are both metaphysical entities. They aren't true or false. They are useful or not useful in a particular situation. — T Clark

‘Objectivity’ is a modern idea. The word itself came into use around the time of Leibniz. It is associated with the emergence of the exact sciences. Taoism is not objective in that sense, but allegorical, metaphorical, and poetic. Which doesn’t mean it’s not true.

Lao Tzu is sometimes considered the "anti-Confucius." — T Clark

There is a tension in Chinese culture between Lao Tzu, representing social non-conformity and renunciation, and Confucius, representing filial piety and social convention. Confucianism sees Lao Tzu as a vagabond or a rascal, and Taoism sees Confucius as a stuffy bureaucrat. It's a dialectical tension in Chinese philosophy.

I've found a translation of the text here https://taoism.net/tao/tao-te-ching-online-translation/

which seems good quality.

From the first verse:

1The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named is not the eternal name.
The nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth
The named is the mother of myriad things
Thus, constantly without desire, one observes its essence
Constantly with desire, one observes its manifestations
These two emerge together but differ in name
The unity is said to be the mystery
Mystery of mysteries, the door to all wonder

Note the juxtaposition of 'without desire' (which is related to wu-wei, not acting, the detachment of the sage) and the 'observation of the essence', with those who are 'with desire', who 'observes it's manifestations (i.e. the 10,000 things). 'Differing in name' - the named being 'the conditioned', the domain of phenomena.

I read the importance of wu wei as recognizing that there is a process underway that is generated by the play of opposites but does not consume the opposed elements that keep reproducing the things that are. — Valentinus

I've always thought that wu wei was action that took place, was motivated, without the interplay of opposites. Which makes me ask - are the interplay of opposites and consciousness the same thing? That brings me back to the confusion I discussed in relation to the first stanza of Verse 2.

I don't agree that "consciousness interferes with action." I think it is more like "talking about action" interferes with consciousness. — Valentinus

Isn't "talking about action" the same thing as consciousness? Even if it's just talking to ourselves.

I wonder if this means in choosing to think a thing good or bad, you create a reversal by this very thought action. — Tom Storm

I guess I don't see this as a choice, at least not a conscious one. Thinking in dualistic terms happens automatically, at least in our, and apparently Lao Tzu's, culture. It takes an effort to stop doing it. Effort is not the right word.

Maybe it means that the more you conceptualize life along these lines, the more you create its opposition. — Tom Storm

This brought another verse to mind. I think it's relevant, but I'm not sure that will be clear. From Stephen Mitchell's Verse 36:

If you want to shrink something,
you must first allow it to expand.
If you want to get rid of something,
you must first allow it to flourish.

My reading - It's the resistance to something bad that leads to its growth. If you want to stop something, stop fighting it. This stanza really resonates with me personally.

‘Objectivity’ is a modern idea. The word itself came into use around the time of Leibniz. It is associated with the emergence of the exact sciences. Taoism is not objective in that sense, but allegorical, metaphorical, and poetic. — Wayfarer

My intention was to hold up the concepts of "objective reality" and "Tao" and compare them. Contrast them. I think the ideas of the Tao and objective reality fill similar roles in their ontological systems. In many situations, I think the Tao is a more useful, less misleading way of seeing things.

Note the juxtaposition of 'without desire' (which is related to wu-wei, not acting, the detachment of the sage) and the 'observation of the essence', with those who are 'with desire', who 'observes it's manifestations (i.e. the 10,000 things). 'Differing in name' - the named being 'the conditioned', the domain of phenomena. — Wayfarer

In my experience, what Lao Tzu wrote about the process by which the 10,000 things grow out of the essence, the Tao, is contradictory and confusing. I don't think that's his fault. After all, these are the ideas of people from a very foreign culture written 2,500 years ago. Also, I think the ideas, to be put into words, have to seem contradictory. I also wonder if making things seem paradoxical is used intentionally to put us in the right state of mind to accept his insights. This process is the idea I have spent the most time on while reading the TTC.

.

I guess I don't see this as a choice, at least not a conscious one — T Clark

I hear you - I guess I said 'choice' because that's how we talk at home. I would have been as comfortable with your formulation.

My reading - It's the resistance to something bad that leads to its growth. If you want to stop something, stop fighting it. This stanza really resonates with me personally. — T Clark

My newbie take on this comports with yours. There seem to be a lot of these sorts of intriguing constructions. Do not do the thing you think, it is the reverse of what you think. I can't quite formulate this.

The big question is, is something lost in the translation?

My newbie take on this comports with yours. There seem to be a lot of these sorts of intriguing constructions. Do not do the thing you think, it is the reverse of what you think. I can't quite formulate this. — Tom Storm

Did the stanza I quoted about shrinking and expanding seem relevant to this issue to you? I wasn't sure if that would make sense.

As for not being able to formulate what this means - Lao Tzu's words seem to contradict each other between verses or even within the same verse. The same words mean different things in different places. If you read more than one translation, you often get very different readings. If you get different people together, they have different readings. In the reading group I was in, we had a member who was a linguist. Even with his help, we were always struggling.

Well, I did major in Comparative Religion, and although we didn’t spend a lot of time on Taoism, in particular, there are analogs for the ‘unmanifest’ or ‘the nameless’ in other cultures as I’ve tried to point out.

In the Semitic faiths - Judaism, Christianity and Islam - the ‘supreme principle’ is idealised as a deity, God, or Allah. In Taoism, the ‘supreme principle’ is idealised as ‘the Way’. In Neo-Platonism, the ‘supreme principle’ is idealised as ‘the One’. I don’t want to say that all these are equivalent, or that they mean the same thing, but there are certain fundamental ideas in these cultures that you find expressed in these different forms. (To say that they’re all the same or all mean the same thing is to reduce them to a kind of cross-cultural melange, which is not my intention.)

The point of that is that these different cultural traditions have varied ways of conceiving of the nature of ‘creation’. Obviously in the Western tradition, the orthodox (small ‘o’) doctrine is that ‘God created the world’ (although I think this understanding has become somewhat ossified, in practice.) In Neoplatonism, the world ‘emanates’ from the One, through a series of cascading ‘downward’ steps to ‘here below’ (which is a very dynamic concept). In Taoism, ‘the nameless’ is, in some ways analogous to the role played by ‘the One’ in Neoplatonism. This is not to say that ‘the Tao’ is like, or is, a creator deity or God. It’s a different conception, but it’s still concerned with the ‘origin’ or ‘the source’ of ‘all things’. So it occupies a similar role in Chinese culture that God might in earlier Christian culture, but without saying that ‘the Tao’ is, therefore, a God, because plainly it’s not.

I think the reason you find it confusing is because it is indeed a very hard notion to grasp. It has to be allowed that the sages - such as Lao Tzu - are accepted to have insights that we, the hoi polloi, do not. Of course, that understanding is very much at odds with the understanding of liberal democracies such as ours. But I think we have to allow that there really might be those with direct insight into this reality.

Finally, Chinese culture is, of course, vastly different to European, Semitic, or Greek. One characteristic I’ve noticed is the extremely terse nature of some of the ideas represented by Chinese characters. For example the Chinese character ‘mu’ means ‘the unmanifest’ and is one of the main emblems or symbols of Chinese Buddhism. As such it has a depth of meaning which is not at all obvious. You have to allow for the cultural context.

The big question is, is something lost in the translation? — TheMadFool

Sure. That's why it's good to read more than one translation. Also, I think differences in translations mirror differences in meaning in the TTC itself. I'm not sure about that. For me, the whole exercise is impressionistic.

Most importantly - this is not an intellectual exercise and I don't think Lao Tzu intended it to be. I think he was trying to transmit an experience to us. The Tao is not a thing, it is an experience. If you can experience that, it can really clarify what he's trying to say. The Tao is a pathway. That is how TTC is often translated - The Book of the Way.

Well, I did major in Comparative Religion, and although we didn’t spend a lot of time on Taoism, in particular, there are analogs for the ‘unmanifest’ or ‘the nameless’ in other cultures as I’ve tried to point out.

In the Semitic faiths - Judaism, Christianity and Islam - the ‘supreme principle’ is idealised as a deity, God, or Allah. In Taoism, the ‘supreme principle’ is idealised as ‘the Way’. — Wayfarer

In some of the Abrahamic faiths, didn't they have prohibitions against speaking the name of God? The idea that the name of God is unspeakable seems similar to how Taoism handles it. Is that you are saying?

This is not to say that ‘the Tao’ is like, or is, a creator deity or God. It’s a different conception, but it’s still concerned with the ‘origin’ or ‘the source’ of ‘all things’. So it occupies a similar role in Chinese culture that God might in earlier Christian culture, but without saying that ‘the Tao’ is, therefore, a God, because plainly it’s not. — Wayfarer

In later verses, there is a cosmology of sorts. It seems to be a myth about how the world was created but also how the world is constantly recreated. The Tao is constantly creating the 10,000 things and they are constantly returning to the Tao to be sustained, because they're really the same thing. Except they're not. It took me a long time to see that, but I think it's really important.

I think the reason you find it confusing is because it is indeed a very hard notion to grasp. It has to be allowed that the sages - such as Lao Tzu - are accepted to have insights that we, the hoi polloi, do not. — Wayfarer

I agree that the ideas are hard to grasp. More importantly, they are difficult to experience. Maybe sages have insights we don't have, but I think Lao Tzu's intention is to lead us to those insights. More than that, I think he is trying to lead us to an experience. Maybe he didn't see the hoi polloi as his audience, but that doesn't mean we can't follow his lead.

As such it has a depth of meaning which is not at all obvious. You have to allow for the cultural context. — Wayfarer

Definitely, but I don't think that excludes us from following the path. I feel much more at home here than I do in the religion I was raised in, protestant Christianity, or in western philosophy.

In some of the Abrahamic faiths, didn't they have prohibitions against speaking the name of God? The idea that the name of God is unspeakable seems similar to how Taoism handles it. Is that you are saying? — T Clark

Quite right. The origin of the name 'Yahweh' was a string of characters called the 'tetragrammaton', which was literally un-sayable. This was to convey the unknowability of God. There were other names used in liturgical and ceremonial contexts, such as Elohim.

And I agree that Tao is generally a cyclical cosmology. It doesn't seem to have an 'in the beginning' in the literal sense that the Bible does.

I too was very drawn to Taoism when I discovered it, although I think it's quintessentially Chinese in many respects. My Anglo physiology doesn't really suit it. ;-)

I think it's quintessentially Chinese in many respects. My Anglo physiology doesn't really suit it. — Wayfarer

As I said - when I first encountered Taoism, I immediately felt at home. I still do. I don't ask for more, no matter what my physiology is. Much of western philosophy feels very alien to me. I'm more comfortable with religions, probably because I was an acolyte at Mt. Olivet Methodist Church when I was a kid. But religions just don't work for me.

It is my belief that Lao Tzu was pointing out how, where and why words fail. What is a word after all, but a sound made in the air, representing something which is not a sound in the air. The Tao itself, may not be reduced to a sound in the air, with the claim that’s what it is. However, it may be pointed to, like pointing a finger at the moon.

Sure. That's why it's good to read more than one translation. Also, I think differences in translations mirror differences in meaning in the TTC itself. I'm not sure about that. For me, the whole exercise is impressionistic.

Most importantly - this is not an intellectual exercise and I don't think Lao Tzu intended it to be. I think he was trying to transmit an experience to us. The Tao is not a thing, it is an experience. If you can experience that, it can really clarify what he's trying to say. The Tao is a pathway. That is how TTC is often translated - The Book of the Way. — T Clark

The natural question is, if Taoism not an intellectual exercise why does it feel like one? After all, it's being discussed in a philosophy forum, no less. Too, I remember Taoism as being classified as a philosophy although the source that made that claim categorizes it as eastern philosophy, implicit in that is another claim viz. that eastern and western minds differ in fundamental ways.

Perhaps the takeaway is that Taoism isn't amenable to analysis as understood in Western philosophy as the application of logic with the utmost rigor. This interpretation seems right on the money for Taoism is basically a collection of occasions in which the universe defies generalizations western philosophy is so fond of. The lesson of Taoism then is that instead of getting our knickers in a twist trying to construct better and better generalizations to accommodate exceptions what we should be doing is assume a flexible stance, a necessity if one is to recognize that each situation is unique in and of itself and deserves to be treated as such and not in accordance to some rule/principle that's intended to cover all cases...because that's "impossible"???

The ancient said the incomplete will be completed, the curve will be straightened, the empty will be filled, the used will be renovated. The simplicity makes having success, the multiplicity disturbs.

Verse number 22.

Thoughts: patience and simplicity. Everything has their properly time. We do not have to rum so quickly along the life. Everything will end up filled at the end of the day. If we multiply when we don’t have to our life will be disturbed

The tao that can be told
is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named
is not the eternal Name.

This is the heart of it. The TTC is about reality before concepts. If it is put into words, it's no longer the Tao. The Tao is unspeakable. It's what was before there was anybody to think about it. It's also a joke. In this book, we're going to talk about what can't be talked about. I see the TTC as a bunch of snap shots of the Tao. Lao Tzu is trying to show it to us without letting the words get in the way. We're supposed to get our view of the Tao in our peripheral vision. — T Clark

This also reminded me of Kant as you later mentioned. Another thing your commentary to "a good man is a bad man's teacher" reminded me of was the legal positivist idea of a Grundnorm. That last one might seem really strange considering what it attempted and was concerned about but the implication is the Grundnorm stays out of reach without a possibility to really name it.

All in all, the political verses are not my favorites. — T Clark

I think it is both in the sense that the "Empire" is presented as a condition that involves all those who participate in it rather than a result of a specific class pursuing articulated ends — Valentinus

Yeah, they seem somewhat at odds with the more personal passages, but I appreciate your thoughts, both.

Here’s a link to a great website that has a whole bunch of translations, including Mitchell’s

https://terebess.hu/english/tao/_index.html — T Clark

I agree that is a great website. I found it earlier and mentioned it to @Jack Cummins.
We are both reading the Chuang Tzu or Zhuangzi but at a different pace. As you say, many translations available and sometimes difficult to choose. I chose the one by Martin Palmer.

Re the Tao Te Ching, I bought the book a long time ago. Like you, I settled on the Stephen Mitchell translation which I pick up now.

A reminder to myself from his Foreword:

'...Lao Tzu deeply cared about society. If society means the welfare of one's fellow human beings: his book is...a treatise on the art of government, whether of a country or of a child...
...his insistence on wei wu wei, literally ' doing, not- doing' has been seen as passivity. Nothing could be further from the truth.'

Mitchell gives the example of non-action in the way an athlete or dancer can enter a state of effortless movement 'without any interference of the conscious will'.

' Lao Tzu's emphasis on softness...the opposite of rigidity...synonymous with suppleness, adaptability, endurance...[his] central figure is a man or woman whose life is in perfect harmony with the way things are. This is not an idea; it is a reality...'

'...the teaching of the Tao Te Ching is moral in the deepest sense'.

I like how Mitchell describes the lack of concept of sin.
It isn't seen as 'a force to resist but as an opaqueness' - as in the case of a dirty window, the light can't shine through.
'Freedom from moral categories' allows for compassion for the wicked and selfish.

I used to agree with the idea that nobody was 'evil' as such. It was only their actions or behaviour that were. I still don't hold with the use of the word 'evil' as applied ( in politics) to those who oppose you or are seen as 'unpatriotic'.

Now, I am not so sure. I have caught myself irate at the the likes of Trump.
Perhaps it's time to reflect.
Perhaps this is a well timed discussion...
So much anger seems to be flowing in all directions right now.

Another thing your commentary to "a good man is a bad man's teacher" reminded me of was the legal positivist idea of a Grundnorm. That last one might seem really strange considering what it attempted and was concerned about but the implication is the Grundnorm stays out of reach without a possibility to really name it. — Benkei

I haven't read all the thread as yet. I don't know if it also says that a bad man can be a good man's teacher.
Also don't know much about legal positivism or Grundnorm, strangely enough.

However, a quick wiki peek:

'...H. L. A. Hart, refers to the theory as a `needless duplication' of the `living reality' of the courts and officials actually identifying the law in accordance with the constitution's rules. It is mystifying to posit a rule beyond these rules, which adds, superfluously in Hart's view, that the constitution is to be obeyed'.

Here, 'the living reality' is the phrase that jumps out at me.
Given that the Grundnorm or basic norm is a concept which forms an underlying basis for a legal system, how real is it. Is it not just an other theory which can be interpreted in all kinds of ways.

You seem to interpret it as 'staying out of reach without a possibility to really name it'.
Clearly, I don't understand this and a quick skim through wiki is insufficient.
Probably my downfall...not reading carefully...

Grateful for further clarification.