I've come across the common opinion that Laozi promotes an indiscriminating cooperation - one that advocates "turning the other cheek" even when wronged. Although I think this is an easy conclusion to make, it is my assertion that this is not the view presented in the Dao De Jing. Therefore, I will be discussing my reasoning in this post.
The sages have no constant mind
They take the mind of the people as their mind
Those who are good, I am good to them
Those who are not good, I am also good to them
Tao De Ching, ch 49, translated by Derek Lin
The Tao is the wonder of all things
The treasure of the kind person
The protection of the unkind person
Admirable words can win the public's respect
Admirable actions can improve people
Those who are unkind
How can they be abandoned?
Tao Te Ching, ch 62, translated by Derek Lin
The Dao doesn't condemn, it is impartial to the myriad things. Accordingly, the sage keeps an empty and open mind and maintains impartialness. They recognize society's view of good and bad and even make their own judgements. Saying this, the sage's judgement is more of a dispassionate observation to be used pragmatically - it is not an opinion that morally disgusts. The sage realizes that "admirable action can improve people", so they do not deny anyone kindness for the simple reason that one is "bad". It is recognized that everyone has the ability to improve.
Here is where I think the misconception arises. It is commonly understood that being good to those who are not good equates to "turning the other cheek" when someone wrongs you. To me, this is an easy but dangerous misconception for those who wish to apply these teachings to real life.
A good commander achieves results, then stops
And does not dare to reach for domination
Achieves result but does not brag
Achieves result but does not flaunt
Achieves result but is not arrogant
Achieves result but only out of necessity
Achieves result but does not dominate
Tao Te Ching, ch 30, translated by Derek Lin
The military is a tool of misfortune
Not the tool of honorable gentlemen
When using it out of necessity
Calm detachment should be above all
Victorious but without glory
Those who glorify
Are delighting in the killing
Those who delight in killing
Cannot achieve their ambitions upon the world
Tao Te Ching, ch 31, translated by Derek Lin
The application of military force is not liked but is an option that must be considered. Laozi dictates that force should only be applied when necessary and to the degree and duration required to achieve victory. Because it is an inauspicious means, there should be no glory in this kind of victory. The necessity of military force can only be decided by one who is impartial and doesn't take joy in such means.
Impartialness starts with knowing and knowing starts with yourself. By bringing to conscious not just your strengths but your weakness and other undesirable aspects of yourself, you can begin to accept yourself in full. This must happen before you can know and accept the world in full.
There is nothing practical or moral about letting someone walk on you. Laozi highly promotes the teachings of actions. Letting someone exploit you only teaches a person that their actions are beneficial, thus encourages them to repeat this behaviour in the future towards you and possibly others. It also encourages other people to copy this behaviour who see it as successful. This is not in line with the teachings of the Dao De Jing as harmony is valued. The "Turn the other cheek" sentiment has value but as a fixed rule it quickly will be the breakdown of harmony. This is something I believe Laozi understood well because he addresses the use of authority and force.
Though the sage's foundation for leadership is non-interference, direct and indirect means have their advised application. As a leader, you should understand the specific skills and appropriate application of these means so you are able and prepared to use them when situations may require. With good leadership, indirect means that represents competition or military/physical force should become an uncommon necessity. The emerging of directness and returning to non-interference is usually enough to promote and maintain harmony within your reach. In this way physical opposition will usually only come from outside your influence where the party doesn't know you and doesn't view future interactions with you as any consequence to the present use of competitive measures such as physical force.
Hi Mark,
ReplyDeleteI’ve written this reply over several days and have tried to organize it, but I may not have succeeded. I have also had to break it into two.
You don't believe the conclusion that Laozi advocates 'turning the other cheek' (Mathew 5:39) or an undiscriminating cooperation. If I understand you right, your view that this is not the view presented in the Daodejing is largely based on the fact that "he addresses the use of authority and force." You present chapters 30 & 31 which deal with warfare, correctly pointing out that "Laozi dictates that force should only be applied when necessary and to the degree and duration required to achieve victory." You stress impartialness, although I'm not sure how someone who is truly impartial can take sides in a conflict. It seems to me that much of what Laozi says about warfare involves defense. Don't let someone slap your cheek in the first place. However, if someone does manage to, Laozi doesn't say we should retaliate in kind. In fact, he explicitly says we should not.
Chapter 49: "Those who are not good, I am also good to them."
Chapter 63: "Repay enmity with goodwill."
You seem to be saying chapter 49 suggests impartialness. I can agree with that, though I'm not sure how this differs from non-discrimination. The Dao "acts" like God in Mathew 5:45, who "maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust." Likewise the Daoist sage.
You assert that "being good to those who are not good" does not imply 'turning the other cheek." Perhaps, but what is an important question is what being "good" means. Being good to a friend could mean knocking him unconscious so he doesn't go out to rob that liquor store. When he wakes up, feeling quite resentful and wants to harm us, we don't have to respond with resentment and, other than defending ourselves, we don't have to respond with enmity.
Chapter 27 talks about the good and the not-good. The sage, who is likely one of "the good," finds some value in the "not good," cares about them, and does not abandon them. And yet, his/her aid leaves no tracks. Thus, even if the 'not good' resents the sage, treats him poorly, like someone who has an alcoholic friend, he/she does not abandon them. This is a high standard and it remains to be seen whether Laozi felt that there might be exceptional cases where one simply must walk away. I don't believe chapters dealing with armed conflict play a significant role here, but I could be wrong.
You write, "There is nothing practical or moral about letting someone walk on you."
Agreed.
"Laozi highly promotes the teachings of actions."
He does?
"Letting someone exploit you only teaches a person that their actions are beneficial, thus encourages them to repeat this behaviour in the future towards you and possibly others. It also encourages other people to copy this behaviour who see it as successful."
This is true if you let it continue. I'm not sure that is what 'turning the other cheek' means. Mathew 5:38 - 48 offers an alternative to the 'eye for an eye' practice, something which, depending on the situation, can lead to never-ending vendetta or vengeance. I suspect this is part of the thrust of the whole section. Mathew 5:44:
I say unto you, love your enemies,
Bless them that curse you,
Do good to them that hate you,
And pray for them which despitefully use[insult, abuse] you, and persecute you.
“Love your enemies” could parallel Laozi’s ‘cherish the raw material (i.e., the not good).’
“Bless them the curse you” and “Do good to them that hate you” could parallel Laozi’s “Repay enmity with goodwill” and “Those who are not good, I am also good to them.”
- continued -
- continued -
ReplyDeleteDaodejing 63:
Act without acting,
Handle affairs without handling affairs,
Taste without tasting,
Regard the small as great and less as more,
Repay ill-will (Yuan) with goodwill (De).
Yuan – resentment and ill-will, enmity, malice – is considered the opposite of De, here I've glossed as Goodwill. This chapter has similarities with the aforementioned chapter 49, where the De of a sage seems to be impartial and indiscriminate, who retains goodness and trustworthiness no matter what. He/she doesn't lower his/her standards because of the way he/she is treated.
De seems to indicate a form of goodwill or kindness or generosity, but most of all, magnanimity: generosity, tolerance and forgiveness of insult or injury. (The Liji, the Analects, the Guoyu, the Xinshu and the Shuoyuan comment on/refer to this saying about ill-will and goodwill.) The message here with regards to De is one of “forgiveness” and “leniency," both moral values. Mathew 5:42: "Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away."
In Wenzi chapter 6 we find the message “you reap what you sow,” which means, that people do not repay enmity with goodwill, but with enmity. The Daoist sage, like the message of the New Testament, may take the higher ground though, in order to prevent the vicious cycle of vengeance. Jia Yi (early Han Dynasty) believes in this too: do not imitate the “not good.” Song Jiu of Liang said that to repay ill-will with ill-will was the way to spread disaster. Song Jiu put into practice Lao Zi’s advice, and had good results.
Ed Slingerland writes, "In calling upon the sage to repay injury with (kindness)-De/ (power)-De, Laozi is emphasizing the therapeutic ability of Virtue to disarm and subtly win over those acting in a manner contrary to the Way.” (Effortless Action p. 304 n29) This may also have to do with shame, which is an important cultural phenomena in Asia. By treating others well, even when they treat us poorly, we may shame them into reforming their ways. This seems to be what you are saying when you write: "The sage realizes that "admirable action can improve people", so they do not deny anyone kindness for the simple reason that one is "bad"."
Whether one fosters shame in "bad people" or one just has an influence over them, either way, the sage's approach is to be "good" to them.
Regarding chapter 63's "repay ill-will with goodwill," Confucius was asked about this in 14.34:
Someone asked, “using goodwill to repay ill-will, what do you think of this?”
The Master replied, “And how would we repay goodwill?! (We should rather) use straightforwardness/justice (Zhi) to repay ill-will and use goodwill to repay goodwill.”
This seems a good approach, as we are not letting others walk on us but we are also not giving them back what they give to us. If the other person is malicious or unkind, one should not reward them for this. Yet Laozi seems to be more lenient. Both Laozi and Confucius affirm the influential power De has over people, yet Laozi seems to have more faith in it.
"The "Turn the other cheek" sentiment has value but as a fixed rule it quickly will be the breakdown of harmony."
Yes, whether Laozi felt that there might be exceptional cases where one simply must walk away is unknown, but fixed rules seem not to be his thing.
~ Bao Pu
Hi Scott,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your well thought out comments. You’ve made wonderful points overall, which I want to give proper attention.
You said: “You stress impartialness, although I'm not sure how someone who is truly impartial can take sides in a conflict.”
Impartialness does not mean being neutral – it means being objective in judgment.
You said: “It seems to me that much of what Laozi says about warfare involves defense. Don't let someone slap your cheek in the first place. However, if someone does manage to, Laozi doesn't say we should retaliate in kind. In fact, he explicitly says we should not.”
With consideration of chapter 69 especially, I have to agree with you. I don’t think Laozi promotes “an eye for an eye”. Saying that, if someone got past your defenses and slapped you, Laozi wouldn’t promote “turning the other cheek” either – he would probably still believe in defense. Regarding chapter 49 again, Laozi is saying to be good to those who are viewed as bad, not ones who are directly harming you in the present moment. It could be understood in a similar way as Matthew 5:44 – 45.
You said: “You seem to be saying chapter 49 suggests impartialness. I can agree with that, though I'm not sure how this differs from non-discrimination.”
Indiscriminate cooperation is not the same thing as being impartial. Indiscriminating cooperation means cooperating regardless of the conditions and actions of others towards you – it is a thoughtless state free from any type of judgment. Impartialness is not thoughtless – it allows one to objectively judge whether cooperation is practical or if another method is necessary.
Regarding my sentence, "Laozi highly promotes the teachings of actions" – I’ll try to further explain. First let me use examples:
Manage the work of detached actions
Conduct the teaching of no words
Tao Te Ching, ch 2, translated by Derek Lin
From this I know the benefits of unattached actions
The teaching without words
Tao Te Ching, ch 43, translated by Derek Lin
I take unattached action, and the people transform themselves
-continued-
-continued-
ReplyDeleteThe sage applies wu wei to achieve ziran, which is a state in tuned with the Dao. Being in tuned with Dao produces de. With the attractiveness of the sage’s de, their actions are viewed as examples – they teach through actions without the need for words.
You said: “This is true if you let it continue. I'm not sure that is what 'turning the other cheek' means. Mathew 5:38 - 48 offers an alternative to the 'eye for an eye' practice, something which, depending on the situation, can lead to never-ending vendetta or vengeance”
That is exactly what “turning the other cheek” means in Matthew – it isn’t practical as a rule. The “eye for an eye” approach is not always auspicious either for the reason you mentioned. Laozi offers us alternatives to non-interference when necessary, which I’ve covered.
You said: “Yuan – resentment and ill-will, enmity, malice – is considered the opposite of De, here I've glossed as Goodwill.”
I agree with the translations of “Yuan” but not with the translation of “De” meaning “goodwill”. I think goodwill reduces de to a moral quality, which doesn’t properly represent Laozi’s concept – this seems more in line with Confucius thought, where de takes on a more ethical meaning. In the Dao De Jing, true de accumulates when one achieves ziran, which is characterized as p’u. Whether goodwill or kindness is present, de is not these qualities on their own. Here are a couple of alternative translations:
Respond to hatred with virtue
Tao Te Ching, ch 63, translated by Derek Lin
Respond to malice with virtue
Tao Te Ching, ch 63, translated by Sam Hamill
As seen in these translations, this isn’t necessarily an opposite match of terms. Laozi is saying to respond to hatred not with condemnation or kindness but with a character that emulates Dao – a pragmatically impartial and genuine response. Terms like “kind” and “good” in the Dao De Jing are used but not in the “turn the other cheek” sentiment and are translated from the word “shan”, not de.
Overall, I gather from your post that we have a very similar view of Laozi's teachings - I think how we understand certain words just differ.
What do you think?
Thank you for your accusation that I presented well-thought comments. I'm not sure true though! You're quite right about impartialness not equalling neutrality. Is the Dao neutral as well as impartial? I think so. Does the Daoist sage emulate this neutrality? Perhaps not.
ReplyDeletere: "With consideration of chapter 69 especially, I have to agree with you. I don’t think Laozi promotes “an eye for an eye”. Saying that, if someone got past your defenses and slapped you, Laozi wouldn’t promote “turning the other cheek” either – he would probably still believe in defense."
What I think is that not all the Daoist authors felt exactly the same way about this. perhaps some had less experience, or not. Chapter 49's message about the sage who retains goodness and trustworthiness no matter what, who doesn't lower his/her standards because of the way he/she is treated might be an example of one who turns the other cheek. I mean, no specific situations are discussed in these chapters, so it's perhaps not wise to form fixed rules of conduct from them. I think I turn the other cheek somewhat regularly in my life, but there have been situations where I have not. The Way that can guide us is not a constant (fixed) way.
re: "Indiscriminating cooperation means cooperating regardless of the conditions and actions of others towards you – it is a thoughtless state free from any type of judgment."
A "a thoughtless state free from any type of judgment" sounds like Wuwei and the approach of the True Man. Perhaps indiscriminating cooperation should not mean constant or invariable cooperation. (BTW, Wuwei is not, imo, "unattached actions.")
re: "Impartialness is not thoughtless – it allows one to objectively judge whether cooperation is practical or if another method is necessary."
I'm not sure. I believe that the Daoist sage comes to his/her 'conclusions' more intuitively, more spontaneously, without deliberations and (conscious) judging. To be honest with you, this is one area in your discussions of Daoism where I think you, er ... go wrong. But perhaps I am simply misunderstanding you, or perhaps I myself am mistaken.
Continued ---
ReplyDeletere: "With the attractiveness of the sage’s de, their actions are viewed as examples – they teach through actions without the need for words."
I agree.
re: "I agree with the translations of “Yuan” but not with the translation of “De” meaning “goodwill”. I think goodwill reduces de to a moral quality, which doesn’t properly represent Laozi’s concept – this seems more in line with Confucius thought, where de takes on a more ethical meaning. In the Dao De Jing, true de accumulates when one achieves ziran, which is characterized as p’u."
Well, all I can say is this. 1) De and Yuan are contrasted in many ancient texts. Sometimes as gratitude and resentment and sometimes as goodwill and ill-will. A story from Zhuangzi 7 also illustrates this usage:
"The emperor of the South Sea was called Shu, the emperor of the North Sea was called Hu , and the emperor of the central region was called Hun-Dun. Shu and Hu from time to time came together for a meeting in the territory of Hun-Dun, and Hun-Dun treated them very generously [shan]. Shu and Hu discussed how they could repay his kindness [De]. "All men," they said, "have seven openings so they can see, hear, eat, and breathe. But Hun-Dun alone doesn't have any. Let's trying boring him some!" Every day they bored another hole, and on the seventh day Hun-Dun died." (trans. Watson)
2) Like all of the other ancient texts, the Daodejing had numerous authors. There usage of words, like 'De," was not completely consistent. It does not mean the same thing in the 16 chapters it appears in.
re: "Laozi is saying to respond to hatred not with condemnation or kindness but with a character that emulates Dao – a pragmatically impartial and genuine response."
Yes, but if you look at all the examples in the Daodejing, De is a benign character or force, one which nourishes all things. I use 'goodwill' because it is, to me, a very broad and general term. 'Benignity' works as well, as I think the Daoist sage's attitude toward all beings is one of benign goodwill. Saying this however does not mean that all of the Daoist sage's actions will always be kindly and benevolent, (even though 'non-contention' and 'non-harm' pop up throughout the text). The later Daoist movement of Huang-Lao (early Han Dynasty) would say that the sage-ruler himself does not act on, interfere with, or punish others, but his subordinates will.
~ Scott
Hi Scott,
ReplyDeleteRegarding "de", all your points are valid and noted. Though, I still view "goodwill" as misleading, I'm in complete agreeance with the reasons you apply it.
Regarding "wu wei", I think I need to make a post dedicated to my view of this concept - I think that will be a good place to continue our discussion.
Thank you for thought provoking contribution to this post. I hope to have my wu wei post done in the near future.