Taoism revisited

Since I wrote my first article on Taoism, I've read some different versions of the Tao Te Ching. I'd like to recommend the book by Stephen Addiss and Stanley Lombardo as a good place to start if you are interested in learning about Taoism ("Tao Te Ching", 1993, Hackett Publishing).

This version presents a mostly literal translation that preserves a lot of the characteristics of the original Chinese. Like the original, it is terse and ambiguous, with a poetic feel. This book leaves the interpretation up to the reader, rather than trying to explain everything.

If you would like to dig deeper into the Tao Te Ching, there are two books by Robert Henricks that I recommend. These books are based on recent discoveries of ancient versions of the Tao Te Ching, and contain more discussion about the text. One of the books is called "Lao-Tzu Te-Tao Ching" (1989, Ballantine Books), and is based on mostly complete texts found at Ma-wang-tui. The second book is called "Lao Tzu's Tao Te Ching" (2000, Columbia University Press). This book is a translation of texts found at Guodian, which are a subset of the traditional Tao Te Ching, with a different ordering of the chapters.

Both of these books give the reader a better feel for the problems of translation of this text, and also talk about the meaning of some of the more obscure passages.

First steps: Ecclesiastes

"All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full" - Ecclesiastes 1:7.

Ecclesiastes talks a lot about the futility of human efforts. Other famous quotes along these lines include "there is nothing new under the sun" (Ecc 1:9) and "vanity of vanities; all is vanity" (Ecc 12:8). I wonder if he might change his mind if he saw some modern technology. Would he count a Ford Mustang as something new? Or is it perhaps just another version of a chariot, and not truly new?

Anyway, Ecclesiastes goes on to consider all the activities of people, and one by one he concludes that they are ultimately futile. He was a great king who collected treasures and built great works, but in the end it was all vanity and vexation of spirit. Then he turned to collecting wisdom, instead of material possessions, but he realized that the wise man dies the same as the fool.

Justice seems to be in short supply in his view. He has seen a good man who died young and a wicked man that lived long (Ecc 7:15). He also observes that no one can control the events of their lives. The swift don't always win the race, and the strong don't always win the battle, but chance happens in all things (Ecc 9:11). People who are born into an evil time will lead troubled lives, through no fault of their own. Yet, as long as there is life, there is hope, so it is better to be alive, and even a living dog is better than a dead lion (Ecc 9:4).

In the end he concludes that the ways of God are a mystery that we can't understand. So it is best to treasure the good that comes into our lives, and enjoy the simple pleasures of life, while not forgetting the dark days that we have experienced. Charity is also a good thing, because while you may be well off today, and able to help others, in the future the situation might be reversed. You never know today what will happen tomorrow.

One interesting observation in Ecclesiastes is that people and animals have a lot in common. "For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; ... as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast" (Ecc 3:19). This raises an interesting ethical point. If people are truly not different in kind from the animals, then is it right to use them the way that we do?

Most of the early philosophies place mankind in a special category that is different from the beasts, and so they don't seriously consider this question. Even this remark in Ecclesiastes is only made in passing, and not expanded on. Still, it is the earliest reference that I know that questions the special nature of mankind.