Tao te Ching: 41

When the highest type of men hear Tao,
They diligently practice it.
When the average type of men hear Tao,
They half believe in it.
When they lowest type of men hear Tao,
They laugh heartily at it.
If they did not laugh at it, it would not be Tao.
Therefore there is the established saying:
The Tao which is bright appears to be dark.
The Tao which goes forward appears to fall backward.
The Tao which is level appears uneven.
Great virtue appears like a valley (hollow).
Great purity appears like disgrace.
Far-reaching virtue appears as if insufficient.
Solid virtue appears as if unsteady.
True substance appears to be changeable.
The great square has no corners.
The great implement (or talent) is slow to finish (or mature).
Great music sounds faint.
Tao is hidden and nameless.
Yet it is Tao alone that skilfully provides for all and brings them to perfection.

This is a good chapter to follow the statement "Reversion is the action of Tao." There are seemingly paradoxical statements in the Tao te Ching.

Chapter 58 says, "Calamity is that upon which happiness depends; Happiness is that in which calamity is latent." Chapter 22 is full of them. In fact, the majority of the chapter is like that, and I address it in my post on that chapter. Chapter 23 as well. So why does this chapter suddenly cast the others into such light? Because most people cannot hear the Tao, and because they can't they see paradox. If they understood the principle of reversion, the paradoxes would no longer seem to be such.

Am I the average sort of man? I think I probably am. I would like to be in accord with the Tao. There are times I think it fits with the way that I see the world better than Buddhism, but the lack of exploration dismays me. My understanding is imperfect.

I do understand that honors are just as troublesome as dishonor. I do understand that not every good thing appears to be a good thing at first glance.

I do know that the greatest genius takes years to hone and grow. The wild talent of a youth is nothing to the genius displayed after she has honed her talent for twenty years.

Heck, Lao Tzu even includes good multimedia advice: keep your radio down low for better sound quality. I'm not sure he meant it that way, but the Tao brings all things to perfection.

Tao te Ching: 40

Reversion is the action of Tao.
Weakness is the function of Tao.
All things in the world come from being.
And being comes from non-being.

When looking at the Tao, always look backward. Everything depends on its base—on what it originates from. Very much like the Buddhist doctrine of dependent arising, things depend on being, and being depends on non-being.

This is the shortest chapter in the Tao te Ching, but it is a very profound restatement of the basic philosophy, if you have read the rest of the chapters.

Reversion also has another meaning. I've been thinking about it for a while. There is a story that Chuang Tzu and his disciple were walking through the mountains when they saw an enormous oak tree. A lumberjack was standing next to the tree but he wasn't cutting it down. Chuang Tzu asked why he didn't cut it down, and the lumberjack said it was of no use. So Chuang Tzu said "Because the tree has no exceptional qualities, it is able to live out its entire life."

Later, Chuang Tzu stops at a friends house for supper and the friend orders a goose to be killed for dinner. The servant says they have two geese, one that can cackle and one that cannot. Which should be killed? Chuang Tzu said to kill the mute one. The disciple said, "Hold on, Master. The tree lived because it had no exceptional qualities but the goose dies for the same reason? You need to pick a side." Chuang Tzu replies, "I pick somewhere in the middle. Even that isn't exactly right, because even one who stays in the middle will occasionally experience trouble."

You can think of reversion as playing "military golf."  You know—left, right, left, right...

When something gets to one far extreme, it becomes the other far extreme. I think this is probably easiest to see in politics. The most liberal of people become conservative once they have their way and those conservatives displaced by the former liberals become radicalized and attempt to bring about something new (the old ways seeming new). Hence why politics seems cyclical. Or fashion. Wars. Everything, really.

The man who goes to extremes eventually becomes his antithesis. Those who stay to the middle path are preserved.

Nagasena and The Chariot

I have decided to write about this after chapter 39 of the Tao te Ching because there is a reference to this parable in the ending lines:

Therefore enumerate all the parts of a chariot as you may, and you still have no chariot.

The Tao te Ching is hundreds of years older (conservatively 150, but  more likely 450 years), and yet we have this reference to the chariot. Perhaps this shouldn't be alarming. After all, Plato had a parable about the chariot and we can't lay this at his footsteps. Still, it could be a case of historical revisionism. It likely is, as other translations use a completely different line that does not even mention chariots.

The story begins with King Milinda visiting the Sankheyya hermitage. Milinda was an Indo-Greek king from northern India, and after traveling to the hermitage, he was greeted by Nagasena.

King Milinda: How is your reverence known and what is your name, sir?

Nagasena: I am known as Nagasena, great king, and everyone calls me Nagasena. Even though my parents named me Nagasena, the word 'Nagasena' is just a name, a label, a series of sounds, a concept. It is just a name. There is no real person to be apprehended.

King: (addresses everyone) Listen up everyone, Nagasena tells me that he is not a real person. How can I agree to that? (to Nagasena) If no person can be apprehended, then who gives you alms? Who eats and takes medicine? Who meditates and guards morality? Who kills, steals, and rapes? If someone were to kill you, Nagasena, wouldn't that be murder? What is this 'Nagasena'? Are you the hairs on your head?

Nagasena: No, great king.

King: The hair on your body?


Nagasena: No, great king.

King: What about your muscles, bone, brain, organs, or any other part of your physical body? Is this Nagasena?


Nagasena: No, great king.

King: Perhaps it is this whole form, or a combination of this form, feelings, perceptions, impulses, and consciousness?


Nagasena: No, great king.

King: Is it something outside of the combination of things?


Nagasena: No, great king.

King: (to everyone) I can discover no Nagasena at all. Just a sound, but who is the real Nagasena? Everyone, your reverence has told a lie. There is no Nagasena!

Nagasena: Your majesty, I notice that you have been brought up in great comfort. If you walked here under the noon sun, on the sharp rocks and burning sands, then your feet would be hurt and you would be tired. So how did you come, on foot or on a horse?

King: I came on a chariot.

Nagasena: If you came on a chariot, please explain what a chariot is. Is the pole the chariot?

King: No, reverend sir.

Nagasena: Is it the wheels, or the frame, or the yoke, or any of the parts?


King: No, reverend sir.


Nagasena: Is it the combination of the parts? If we laid out the wheels and the frame and the yoke and all the parts, would that be a chariot?


King: No, reverend sir.


Nagasena: Then is it outside of this combination of parts?


King: No, reverend sir.


Nagasena: Then, ask as I do, I can't discover a chariot. Chariot seems to be just a mere sound. Where is this chariot? Your majesty has told a lie!

Greeks: (applaud) How will you get out of this, your Majesty?

King: Nagasena, I have not told a lie. It is in the dependency and interworking of all the parts that you have a chariot. A pile of parts isn't enough. It is when they all work together that you have this conceptual term, sound, and name of a chariot.

Nagasena: Your majesty is exactly right about the chariot. It is just so with me. Nagasena is the working of all the parts of the body and the five skandhas that make me. But in ultimate reality, however, the person still isn't caught.

King: Well played sir. Well played.

I paraphrased it from my books, and there is a decent online copy here: The Questions of King Milinda.

I'll refer to this post when we get to dependent arising  and Buddhism, but I wanted to explain the reference so that it could be seen in the context of chapter 39. He's saying, like Nagasena, that a pile of parts does not make up a chariot. You have to have the base before you have the thing.

Tao te Ching: 39

Of those that obtained the One:
Heaven obtained the one and became clear.
Earth obtained the One and became tranquil.
The spiritual beings obtained the One and became divine.
The valley obtained the One and became full.
The myriad things obtained the One and became full.
Kings and barons obtained the One and became rulers (cheng) of the empire.
What made them so is the One.
If heaven had not thus become clear,
It would soon crack.
If the earth had not thus become tranquil,
It would soon be shaken.
If the spiritual beings had not become divine,
They would soon wither away.
If the valley had not thus become full,
It would soon become exhausted.
If the myriad things had not thus lived and grown,
They would soon become extinct.
If kings and barons had not thus become honorable and high in position,
They would soon fall.
Therefore humble station is the basis of honor.
The low is the foundation of the high.
For this reason kings and barons call themselves orphaned, the lonely ones, the unworthy.
Is this not regarding humble station the basis of honor?
Is it not?
Therefore enumerate all the parts of a chariot as you may, and you still have no chariot.
Rather than jingle like the jade,
Rumble like the rocks.

Remember that the Tao dwells in the lowest of places like water. It is forever the base and it dwells in the valleys. Do we worry about the sky cracking or the earth shaking on a physical level? Perhaps not nearly so much as we once did. The lesson still stands though: all things are supported on the lowest level or they cannot reach the heights that they aspire to.

Lao Tzu says that the missing element is the Tao.

I think this question has been around for nearly as long as humanity, or at least human consciousness. What makes us different than the stuff around us? We have answered with the idea of the soul. Lao Tzu answers not with the soul, but the Tao.

The chariot reference at the bottom is sometimes translated as "Supreme praise is no praise", which is catchy and short. I like it very much and it is easy to remember. I left in the chariot reference it is a link to one of my favorite parables. How odd that it would be a Buddhist parable from around 150 B.C.E. called The Chariot. I will address Nagasena and the parable in my next post, instead of the next chapter of the Tao. It will resume normally after that.

Tao te Ching: 38

The man of superior virtue is not (conscious of) his virtue,
And in this way he really possesses virtue.
The man of inferior virtue never loses (sight of) his virtue,
And in this way he loses his virtue.
The man of superior virtue takes no action, but has no ulterior motive to do so.
The man of inferior virtue takes action, and has an ulterior motive to do so.
The man of superior humanity takes action, but has no ulterior motive to do so.
The man of superior righteousness takes action, and has an ulterior motive to do so.
The man of superior propriety (li) takes action,
And when people do not respond to it, he will stretch his arms and force it on them.
Therefore, only when Tao is lost does the doctrine of virtue arise.
When virtue is lost, only then does the doctrine of humanity arise.
When humanity is lost, only then does the doctrine of propriety arise.
Now, propriety is a superficial expression of loyalty and faithfulness, and the beginning of disorder.
Those who are the first to know have the flowers (appearance) of Tao but are the beginning of ignorance.
For this reason the great man dwells in the thick (substantial), and does not rest with the thin (superficial).
He dwells in the fruit (reality), and does not rest with the flower (appearance).
Therefore he rejects one, and accepts the other.

The beginning is a condemnation of pride and praise for humility, or at the very least a practical hsü (vacuity). When someone is truly good, they seldom notice it. They simply think that is the way that is natural and often reply, "Isn't everyone like that?" Those who are proudest of their virtue are those who seldom have much and are on their way to losing it by bragging about it. Imagine someone who works at a homeless shelter for 10 hours a week, but spends the remaining time letting other people know that they are doing it. Eventually, that person becomes known not for their good work, but for letting others know about it.

I suffer from some of this myself. I want validation and approval, and that is a way to get it. It just proves that I don't have all of my own ducks in a row. How many people have you met with the kind of unaware virtue that Lao Tzu discusses? I think you will find it is a small number. Yet, I can't think of many who would not think well and want to emulate such a person.

Lao Tzu does an excellent job of pronouncing and then explaining the next section about the fall from virtue to disorder. This is rightly taken, again, as a condemnation of Confucianism for the same reasons as before. The Confucian ideals discussed in chapter 18 are the natural response of humans to come back to a state of harmony with Tao, and therefore existence, without actually coming back into harmony with Tao.

It is an emulation of an the ideal state, not the achievement of the ideal state.

Wang Pi, a Neo-Taoist from about the 9th century (birthdate unknown, presumed to die in 805 C.E.), wrote many commentaries, including one of the Tao te Ching. He notes:

How is virtue to be attained? It is to be attained through Tao. How is virtue to be completely fulfilled? It is through non-being as its function. As non-being is its function, all things will be embraced. Therefore in regard to things, if they are understood as non-being all things will be in order, whereas if they are understood as being, it is impossible to avoid the fact that they are products (phenomena).

 This is interesting to me. I see it as a marriage between Taoist thought and Buddhist thought.

Tao te Ching: 37

Tao invariably takes no action, and yet there is nothing left undone.
If kings and barons can keep it, all things will transform spontaneously.
If, after transformation, they should desire to be active,
I would restrain them with simplicity, which has no name.
Simplicity, which has no name, is free of desires.
Being free of desires, it is tranquil.
And the world will be at peace of its own accord.

The concept of simplicity is very similar to the Buddhist concept of the Four Noble Truths, and by extension, the Eight Fold Path. I will cover both in much more detail later, but very briefly the Four Noble Truths are:

1. There is suffering in the world.
2. Suffering is caused by craving/grasping for things.
3. There is a way to stop suffering.
4. The way to stop suffering is to follow the Eight Fold Path.

And the Eight Fold Path goes on to describe a code of conduct that includes Right View, which basically means to see things (including and especially your own motivations) for what they are. Often it is just an animal craving for more or an avoidance of pain. Pain isn't to be confused with suffering. Everyone will get sick and stub their toe or break an arm, suffering is primarily psychological and emotional. In this case, being free of desires is very similar to an ideal on the path to enlightenment in Buddhism.

Tao te Ching: 36

In order to contract,
It is necessary first to expand.
In order to weaken,
It is necessary first to strengthen.
In order to destroy,
It is necessary first to promote.
In order to grasp,
It is necessary first to give.
This is called subtle light.
The weak and tender overcome the hard and the strong.
Fish should not be taken away from water.
And sharp weapons of the state should not be displayed
to the people.

This irritates the Confucianists because it goes against the rectification of names. Names should agree with the thing, in their philosophy. Not only that, doing one thing with the goal of getting another is deceitful. I say that it is possibly cunning, but there is nothing to be gained by it.


The beginning is a natural law, and it fits within the idea of the taiji. One action leads into another and both depend on each other. Very few would disagree with this, especially with the analogy of a muscle.

Do you get something from giving? Perhaps not in the physical sense, but some would make an argument that giving has intangible rewards such as good will or positive feelings. Good karma. Lao Tzu puts this principle with the other natural laws and gives it a name, the subtle light, which is the light of nature from chapter 27.

He also includes a caveat about not disturbing a harmonious environment. It makes sense to me, but I don't find it very satisfying. This could be because I am going through my own period of reaching and grasping. At the moment, samsara has me firmly in its grasp.