The document's ftp filename and the full directory path are given in the
coombspapers top level INDEX file.

Date of the document's last update/modification 03/09/93
--------------------------------------------------------
THE TAO TEH CHING - part 2 of 5
original filename: taote2-5.txt
--------------------------------------------------------

This file is the work of Stan Rosenthal. It has been placed here, with his kind
permission, by Bill Fear. The author has asked that no hard copies, ie. paper
copies, are made.

Stan Rosenthal may be contacted at 44 High street, St. Davids, Pembrokeshire,
Dyfed, Wales, UK. Bill Fear may be contacted at 29 Blackweir Terrace, Cathays,
Cardiff, South Glamorgan, Wales, UK. Tel (0222) 228858 email fear@thor.cf.ac.uk.
Please use email as first method of contact, if possible. Messages can be sent
to Stan Rosenthal via the above email address - they will be forwarded on in
person by myself  -  B.F.

NOTE:
You may find and odd sentence or missing information every now and again in the
files. Hopefully not to frequently. This is because the files were originally
written on a machine using CP/M and had to be converted to dos format. Many of
the 5.25 disks were very old and had bad sectors - thus missing info.
...............................Beginning of file...............................
....................................2 of 5.....................................

INTRODUCTION: THE TAO TE CHING, LAO TZU, TAOISM AND ZEN

There is frequently some confusion between three practices, each of which is
generically termed 'Taoism'.  Since this confusion exists, it is important that
the prospective student of Taoism can distinguish between them.  The three
activities, or practices of Taoism are Philosohical or speculative Taoism,
Religious or esoteric Taoism, and Alchemical or 'debased' Taoism.

The earliest of these is Philosophical Taoism (Tao-chia), which is believed to
have developed between the sixth to the second century before the Christian era,
from the earlier 'Yin-Yang' school of philosophy, whose teachings it inherited
and integrated into its own 'philosophical system' through the 'I Ching', now
(unfortunately) most widely known as a work of 'divination'.

Philosophical Taoism is generally thought to have been based on the 'Tao Te
Ching' of the possibly legendary Lao Tzu, and the work of his follower, Chuang
Tzu, which is known through the book which bears his name, and is otherwise
without title.

The major development and establishment of Religious Taoism (Tao- chiao) took
place during the two Han dynasties (from 206 B.C. to 220 A.D.), and  considered
the Tao Te Ching as divine teaching, using specific interpretations of Lao Tzu's
work as one of its own primary scriptures.  The Religious Taoists deified Lao
Tzu, describing him as the 'T'ai Shang Lao-chun'.  In later centuries, Religious
Taoism was to become a very powerful movement throughout China, where it was
widely practiced, at least until the middle of the twentieth century.

The earliest known reference to Alchemy (in Eastern and Western Literature) is
in the 'Shi-chi', written about eighty-five B.C., but the 'Chou'-i ts'an t'ung
ch'i' of Wei Po-yang (c.200 A.D.) was probably the first major alchemical text
to use a Taoist work to this end, some auhorities believeing the treatise to be
a derivation of the I Ching.  This form of alchemy was referred to by the
Philosophical Taoists as 'debased Taoism'.

Of these three 'forms' of Taoism (or practices which called  themselves Taoist),
Religious and Alchemical Taoism are not mentioned in the text of this work,
other than where they, and similar practices, were referred to, usually
indirectly, in the Chinese text (and then usually in a derisory manner).

Readers of both the I Ching and the Tao Te Ching will readily apppreciate from
many of Lao Tzu's statements, that he was certainly well versed in the concepts
explained in the earlier work, and accepted its major precept, that all things
are always in a state (or process) of change ('I Ching' means 'Book of
Changes').  However, even allowing for the age of the I Ching, and the certainty
that its concepts were well known in China at the time of Lao Tzu, it would
seem, from historical records, that the Tao Te Ching was considered to be a
perplexing book, even in the period in which it was written.  Although not
mentioning either Lao Tzu or the Tao Te Ching (nor the I Ching) by name, many of
Chuang Tzu's stories (which are probably apocryphal) serve to illustrate and
explain points from the Tao Te Ching.  If there were no confusion or doubt,
presumably such explanatory material would not have been required.

In its original form, the Tao Te Ching (as it is now known) is believed to have
consisted of eighty-one short chapters, these being arranged in two sections,
known as the 'Tao Ching' and the 'Te Ching'.  The first of these was comprised
of thirty-seven chapters, and the second of forty-four chapters.  The length of
the original work is said to have been approximately five- thousand characters,
and it is probable that these were written on bamboo strips or slats, which
would then have been bound together to form two scrolls, each appearing somewhat
like a venitian blind with vertical slats.  These were a common form of 'record'
in the period of Lao Tzu, this being known as 'The Period of the Warring
States'.

Since it is not known with absolute certainty that a person named 'Lao Tzu'
actually lived during the period of the warring states, to catagorically
describe the Tao Te Ching as the work of Lao Tzu would be without sufficiently
valid historical foundation.  Even the 'biography of Lao Tzu' which may be found
in the 'Historical Records' (Shih-chi) of Ssu-ma Ch'ien (second century B.C.) is
not without its inconsistencies. This record describes Lao Tzu as having been an
archivist of the Court of Chou, and further states that he is said to have
personally instructed Kung Fu Tzu (Confucius).

It is in this last statement that one inconsistency may be found, for other
chronicles state the date of the death of Lao Tzu to precede that of the birth
of Kung Fu Tzu by nearly half a century.  Even the author of the 'Historical
Records' states his doubts as to the authenticity of the information available
regarding Lao Tzu, and some scholars maintain that the Tao Te Ching does not
present a distinctive or single point of view.  They argue that it is probably a
compilation or anthology of sayings from various writers and schools of thought,
reaching its present form in the third century B.C.

Conversly, according to legend, it is said that on his retirement from public
office, Lao Tzu headed west, and that the guardian of the pass to the state of
Ch'in requested that he write a treatise on the Tao before departing.  It is
then that Lao Tzu is supposed to have sat for two days, in which time he wrote
the Tao Te Ching, after which he left, some writers stating that he was never
heard of again, others describing his ascent to heaven in the form of a
magnificent dragon.

Whichever story we believe concerning the existence of Lao Tzu, we may
reasonably conclude (at least) that there is much contradictory evidence.
Although I cannot offer conclusive proof that he did exist, I do not believe
that the contradictions prove that such a person did not exist, and neither do I
believe they prove the Tao Te Ching to have been written by more than one
person.  As I have stated, the reasons for my beliefs are admittedly without
sufficient 'hard evidence' to withstand strong philosophical questioning, but
they are offered here for those who might wish to know of an argument contrary
to current academic opinion.

Since one meaning of the words      'Lao Tzu' is 'Old Man', it is very unlikely
that they were used as an ordinary (or 'proper') name, but could well have been
a 'nickname'.  Some authorities claim that this was so in the case of the person
in question, the nickname possibly being derived from the fact (?) that he was
born with white hair, like that of an old man.  This theory seems to borne out
by the fact that the second character,  can also be used to mean 'child'.
However, in the context of teaching and learning, it also means 'master' or
'scholar' (compared with 'pupil' or 'student').  Furthermore, and for the
purpose of this discussion, more importantly, the same two characters which form
the Chinese 'Lao Tzu' form the words 'old scholar', pronounced as 'roshi' in
Japanese, a title usually reserved in that language for a master of Zen
teaching.

This means that 'Lao Tzu' is the Chinese equivalent to the Japanese 'Roshi'.
For this reason I believe there probably was a person called Lao Tzu, but that
Lao Tzu was his title, rather than his name.  It may of course be that there
were many 'old scholars', all known by that title, but the existence of many has
never been considered proof of the non-existence of one.

At this juncture it is perhaps necessary to mention briefly the historical and
philosophical relationship between Taoism, Ch'an and Zen.  The word 'Zen' is the
Japanese pronunciation of the Chinese 'Ch'an', the system attributed to the
'Bodhidharma' (in Japanese 'Daruma'), described by followers of Zen Buddhism as
the twenty-eighth Buddhist Patriarch, who is said to have arrived in China in
526 A.D.  Although well known to followers of Zen, it is not always known to
others that the Bodhidharma then spent nine years in the earliest Chinese
Buddhist temple, which had by that time been in existence for over four hundred
years.  Furthermore, during that period, the original Buddhism of India had
undergone many changes in China, much of its teaching having been adapted
(Tibetan Buddhists might claim, 'adulterated') by its proximity to Taoism.

Today, in the West at least, the most widely known sects of Zen are Buddhist.
However, even before its acceptance by Buddhists, Ch'an (or 'Zen') was accepted
by the Chinese followers of Philosophical Taoism (Tao Chia) as an adjunct to
their own philosophy and practices.  So it was that the 'non-religious' aspects
of Zen and Taoism became integrated into the system known in China as 'Ch'an
Tao-chia'.

It is probable that we will never know all the reasons for this two-way
integration which occurred between Tao-chia and Ch'an, but some of the reasons
become apparent when we learn something of the similarities between the
philosophies underlying the two systems.  It will hopefully suffice to mention
that the practitioners of each group probably felt an affinity with the
'fluidity' of thought and action of the practitioners of the other, recognizing
this as stemming from the same philosophical source as their own.  Similarly, it
is very likely that the members of both groups appreciated the 'ethics' of the
other, since both philosophies emphasize the development of the individual as a
prerequisite to the development of society.

Notwithstanding any inaccuracies in my own interpretation of events, of even
greater historical significance is the fact that from about six hundred A.D.,
the survival of Philosophical Taoism was made possible only through its adoption
by Ch'an.  Had it not been for this fact, the antagonistic attitude of the
Religious Taoists, combined with their growing governmental power, might easily
have resulted in the forceful demise of Taoist Philosophy as it is known today.

As to the continued integration and co-existence of Taoism and Zen, we
fortunately need look no further than the words of the great Zen scholar,
Professor D.T. Suzuki, who said,
    "To ask a question about Zen is to ask a question 
     about the Tao."

All this is of course intended to illustrate the links between the two practices
which use the same written characters (    ) as a teaching name or honorary
title, and that this title may have been used by the author of the Tao Te Ching
wishing to retain his anonymity.

If this was the case, it could have been either for reasons of personal safety
on the part of the author, or out of deference to his own teachers.  Any reader
who has knowledge of the history of China during the peiod of the warring states
will readily appreciate, and hopefully sympathise with the first of these
reasons, but the second reason perhaps requires some explanation.  This is now
offered.

Carrying out one's work in an unostentatious manner is an important aspect of
Taoist teaching, as is respect for one's teachers.  In some instances these two
principles were adhered to so rigorously that a writer or painter might either
not sign his work at all, or use a pseudonym compiled (possibly as an anagram)
from the names of his most revered teachers.  It is therefore possible that the
author of the Tao Te Ching used the pseudonym 'Lao Tzu' as an acknowledgement of
his own teacher, using the title 'old scholar' to refer to that teacher as he
might have been known and referred to by his own students.

It is quite likely that the title 'Roshi', used in Zen (Japanese Ch'an)
developed as an 'official title' from its earlier Chinese usage.  In Zen, it is
thought to be rank bad manners to use the real name of one's own teacher in a
published work, at least in the context of he or she being one's own teacher
(for reasons which I have attempted to explain in the 'Acknowledgements'
section), but it is quite acceptable to refer to him (or her) by an honorary
title.  Combine any of these possibilties with the fact that one's own teacher
may have been given or have chosen a 'teaching name' (a pseudonym under which a
teacher may work) and it becomes easier to understand why it is impossible to be
definitive regarding the 'real name' of the author or authors of the Tao Te
Ching.  For the purposes of this discussion however, I wish to continue from the
assumption that the Tao Te Ching did have an author, and that we may, without
too much 'licence', refer to him as Lao Tzu.

The second factor which causes me to believe that we should not completely
disregard the legend of the writing of the Tao Te Ching concerns its cryptic
style.  The basis of my belief is twofold.  In the first instance, if, as legend
tells us, Lao Tzu completed his writing in two days, it is not surprising that
it was cryptic, since this would have required him to write at a rate of two and
one half thousand words each day.  It may therefore be that he wrote as
succinctly as possible in order to complete his task as quickly as possible, so
that he could continue on his journey into retirement.

Those who know the Tao Te Ching will also know that Lao Tzu did not teach that a
task should be rushed; rather, he taught that all things should occur in their
natural time.  This leads to my second point regarding the cryptic style of the
original work.

We know that the keeper of the pass, who made the request for a written copy of
Lao Tzu's thoughts, was a well known Taoist of the period named Yin Hsi, also
referred to as 'Kwan Yin'. As a Taoist, he would certainly have been familiar
with the teachings of Lao Tzu, even though, as he himself is supposed to have
told the old philosopher, because of the nature of his work, he had not been
able to avail himself of personal tuition from the master.  It could be that the
'vagueness' (or seemingly esoteric nature of the first chapter) is due to the
fact that Lao Tzu would have had no reason to explain the Tao to someone who was
already versed in Tao-chia.

I believe we can assume that, although possibly not nationally famous, Lao Tzu
would certainly have been well known in his own province.  This would certainly
seem to be the case, since Yin Hsi either recognised the figure of Lao Tzu, or
his name, otherwise he would not have made his request to that particular
traveller.

Assuming the keeper of the pass to know something of the teaching of Lao Tzu,
his request could have been made in the form of a list of questions, to which
Lao Tzu might have written the answers in the form of brief (or cryptic) notes,
as an 'aide memoire'.   This might of course also account for the apparent
discontinuity of the completed work.  If the text were written in answer to a
number of questions, the sequence of the text would conform to that of the
questions, which might easily have been prepared by Yin Hsi over a period of
time, in the hope that the occasion might arise when he would meet with a
scholar such as Lao Tzu, with whom he could then discuss his questions.  This
could account for the apparent repetitions in the text, for two questions both
phrased in a similar manner, would presumably be answered in a similar manner.

This concludes the summary of my own beliefs regarding the legend of Lao Tzu and
the Tao Te Ching, other than to add the rider used frequently even by those who
disagree totally with my own interpretation of the legend.  This is that,
irrespective of the authenticity of the legend and the problem of identifying
its authorship, the majority of scholars date the origin of the text of the  Tao
Te Ching no later than 400 B.C.  Furthermore, there is virtually no dissent
among scholars as to its great value as a philosophical, literary and historical
work.


NOTES ON THE INTERPRETATION

The text of the Tao Te Ching follows immediately after these notes, the
arrangement following the convention set by Wan Bih in the third century A.D.
Each of the eighty-one sections is shown in English, the text being as brief as
English grammar will permit, whilst still retaining sensibility.  The
differences between my own rendering of the text and those of other translators
will seem to some readers to be minor; to others they may seem radical.  In
either case, the reader is of course free to compare the texts by referring to
those editions cited earlier in these notes.

The Chinese characters employed as chapter headings are written in a style
approximating to the period in which the original text was written.  The style
is commonly known as 'small seal script'. Readers wishing to use modern Chinese
characters for their own researches may of course refer to any or each of the
Chinese texts mentioned earlier, and there are of course many others.

'Small seal script' is by no means the earliest written form of Chinese, but it
is certainly one of the most aesthetically pleasing and easiest to read.  Being
more pictographic than later forms, the symbolism of the images contained within
the small seal characters is easier to understand than it is in later forms.
Modern Chinese script is virtually always more stylized, and (if hand written)
frequently more 'freehand', and therefore sometimes difficult for the
inexperienced reader to decipher.

Each small seal script chapter heading provides an approximate rendering of
either the English title beneath or beside which it appears, or of the key
concept or concepts embodied in the text of that chapter.  As with the Chinese
text itself, there are a number of different 'authentic' chapter headings.  In
most instances I have used a 'traditional' heading, but where even the
traditional meaning is unclear I have used the heading I believe to be most
appropriate to the contents of the chapter.  Following the usual conventions,
horizontally presented script should be read from left to right, and vertically
presented script should be read from top to bottom, the right hand column first.

As I have stated earlier, because of the cryptic nature of the original text,
and also because of the difference between the structure of English and Chinese
grammar, a completely literal translation of the Chinese text would make little
if any sense to the reader not versed in both the written Chinese language and
the concepts of Taoism.  This means that virtually any intelligible English
rendering of the Tao Te Ching is bound to be longer than the original Chinese
text.  The variation in the length of many English (and Chinese) texts of the
Tao Te Ching will be readily apparent to the reader of those translations listed
in the reference section.

There are many valid arguments for and against the inclusion of commentaries on
the text in any edition of the Tao Te Ching, but in this instance I hope that
the English rendering will 'speak for itself', thus serving the purpose for
which it is intended.  It is for this reason that no separate commentaries are
included.

The text in this edition is somewhat longer than that found in most other
translations. There are two reasons for this, the first being that it includes
certain expansions resulting from points raised in discussion by my own
students.  In those instances where there was apparent lack of clarity in my
original drafts, additions have been made to clarify the concepts involved.
(Where additions have been made to the most commonly available Chinese and
English editions, the addition and the reason for its inclusion are annotated in
the appendix at the end of the book.)  The second reason is the form of
interpretation employed, the rationale of which is now briefly described.

I do not believe it is by accident that the Tao Te Ching can be interpreted at
many different levels without contradiction.  The actual interpretation placed
upon the text by any translator will depend on many factors, as has already been
discussed.  However, there is no doubt that Tao-chia and Ch'an are both very
much concerned with individual development, maintaining that this is essential
to a healthy society.

It is from this particular viewpoint that the rationale for this interpretation
has developed.  Although other translators have certainly raised this issue, to
the best of my knowledge this is the first rendering to give priority to this
aspect of the Tao Te Ching.  It was because my own students requested such an
interpretation in English, and because we were unable to find such an
interpretation that I undertook the translation and interpretation presented
here.



                                                Stanley Rosenthal
                                                 (Shi-tien Roshi)

                                     British School of Zen Taoism                                                
                                          Cardiff, September 1984

..................................End of file....................................
....................................2 of 5.......................................