What do you take this to mean?

I was reading through the Tao Te Ching as translated by J. Legge last night and I came across this part

"Not to value and employ men of superior ability is the way to
keep the people from rivalry among themselves; not to prize articles
which are difficult to procure is the way to keep them from becoming
thieves; not to show them what is likely to excite their desires is
the way to keep their minds from disorder.

Therefore the sage, in the exercise of his government, empties
their minds, fills their bellies, weakens their wills, and strengthens
their bones.

He constantly (tries to) keep them without knowledge and without
desire, and where there are those who have knowledge, to keep them
from presuming to act (on it). When there is this abstinence from
action, good order is universal."

Here is another translation by S. Mitchell

"If you overesteem great men,
people become powerless.
If you overvalue possessions,
people begin to steal.

The Master leads
by emptying people's minds
and filling their cores,
by weakening their ambition
and toughening their resolve.
He helps people lose everything
they know, everything they desire,
and creates confusion
in those who think that they know.

Practice not-doing,
and everything will fall into place."

Though its wording changes slightly parts of it still seem to speak the same. What do those of you who study this take these passages to mean?

 

its beautifully true. its trying not to create difference i.e. indifference. the universe does not know good from bad. it just is. it just does.

 

Legge's interpretation/translation sucks...

S. Mitchell's is nice... Yes, in my feeling, It captures the spirit of Tao nicely.

Indy, I would suggest you research Communism a bit...


ZW

 

I cannot tell you exactly what I think this passage means because it is too complex and personal for me to explain.
The weight and density of words are different for different people.
For instance, when you hear (or see) the word " Master" do you think of " Master and slave"? or " Master and student"?
Do you see what I'm getting at?

This is the biggest problem with translations. Even if we are to find the most accurate translation of a particular word, we have no idea the weight and density of that word, as it was felt by the people of that time and place. We can only guess at clues. And use our creativity and intuition. Good luck!

ZW

 

I got myself a full copy of Mitchell's translation and after reading through it I think I understand better what this passage meant. You are right Lagge's translation is horrible. I'm currently collecting historical taoist writings from the internet and storing them on my pc to read through when I have the time.

 

What really matters is how you translate it.

 

It is saying that things in and of themselves have no intrinsic value, they simply are. They only have value when they are prescribed a context by us. Obama is only powerful because there are a bunch of people who say he is powerful, and allow themselves to be governed by him. Without the context of the U.S. government and blahzy blah, he's just another man. Money is only valuable because our current state of affairs allows us to procure items that WE deem. Nothing has any inherent worth.

By designating people/things as more valuable than others, we are allowing the natural flow of things to be disrupted. By acting non-coercively, we can allow life to flow much more naturally and harmoniously.

That's just my interpretation. =]

 

I think its saying pretty much what it means. Its about fostering conditions in which people can be more egalitarian and less competitive. Although, I agree with the second translation more than the first, because I think we should employ people of superior ability. If someone's very good at one particular thing, it can be very beneficial to the community. However, over-esteeming them in the form of exclusively material rewards probably isn't the best thing, and consumerism and commercialism only creates the problem of a society in which people fight each other over stuff.The first ones less vague, and the second one's a general truth open to interpretation.

As for the rest of it I don't really believe in masters though, and I think these are ideals individuals should pursue on their own, not some leader or anything. I don't know who the master is, but if he's some sort of political figure as the first one implies or spiritual guru as the second one indicates, I won't let him empty my mind. That's something I'll do on my own terms. This sounds rather Machiavellian. It sounds like its addressing educated, literate land lords and telling them to keep the masses stupid, well fed, and possibly mediocre so that they don't revolt.

 

It means you shouldn't place emphasis or value on external goals or things, because they are transient.

Practice not-doing
and everything will fall into place.

It's saying that the only true peace is one that comes from inside.

 

As another said the density of the words are too great to narrow down into a specific message.. too nuanced to defile it with any sort of certainty..

The first part of the passage has accuracy in showing how Jealousy leads to discord.



"He constantly (tries to) keep them without knowledge and without
desire, and where there are those who have knowledge, to keep them
from presuming to act (on it)."

To keep them from presuming 'to act on it'.. Most in modern society have access to a shit load of opinions.. but the key, i think, is to remain removed from its implications, abstain from trying to champion a particular thing. Undoubtably if you are in the place you are, reading this, you have realized the tendency to put your foot in your own mouth.

What is more effective?

Lecturing someone on how to do something-- triggering their defense mechanisms..
or
Leading by example; overtime, making the errors of someone's ways apparent to themselves on their own terms?

 

that quote sounds more like something i would expect from master kung, then lao tsu.

 

i dont take it to mean anything in particular

 

Probably it may have something to do with following the way of nature rather than constructed cultures.

 

desire is a disorder of the mind that leads to unhealthy attachments. the part about knowledge is more difficult to understand but I interpret it as that which has been acquired indirectly(;ike trying to understand enlightenment by reading a book), as opposed to wisdom acquired directly through experience.

 

In general I tell people they need to study ten different translations and avoid anything published by Shambala press. It isn't just a language barrier, but a cultural, historical, political, academic, etc. barrier that is about as difficult to overcome as they get.

 

this would be very good advice for ANY belief, as i seriously doubt any christian who wasn't living in the middle east more then 1400 years ago has the slightest idea what most of its parables and other teachings are actually talking about either. probably true of muslims born in the last few hundred years as well.

 

Its good to remind myself even, because projecting our own view on others is just a natural inclination we have towards finding compatible people.

 

9 years on, it could have changed.. like now, apparently this dress I bought is sick, 9 years ago had someone said that to me, it be back to the shop we go..

9 years.. lol

 

I take it to mean that if you want to be “in power,” you need to control others and how they think. There’s not much free will of choice in there.

Pretty bad advice.

 

Thats how I took it. To me it sounds like advice given to a person in power on how to best control one's subjects to keep them weak and content with their lowly position in life and to keep them from pursuing personal achievement

I hope maybe something is just lost in translation?