The Dao Is Open website is devoted to the cultivation of Dao (Tao) and De (Te), as exemplified in the works of Laozi (Lao Tzu) and Zhuangzi (Chuang Tzu).


Return Home	Laozi's Dao De Jing	Your Dao De Jing	Zhuangzi (Chuang Tzu)	Links	Meditation	Dao (Tao) is Open Forum	Book List	Other Stuff

Dao De Jing Chapter 2

BY: Bao Pu

Translation and Commentary by Bao Pu
Tian Xia Jie Zhi Mei Zhi Wei Mei
Beneath the Heavens, when everyone knows perfection as perfection
Si Ya Yi
Then there is already imperfection

Jie Zhi Shan (Zhi Wei Shan)
When everyone knows goodness (as goodness)
Si Bushan Yi
Then there is already not-good.

(Gu) You Wu Zhi Xiang Sheng Ye
(The reason is that:) Having and Not-Having give rise to each other*
Nan Yi Xiang Cheng Ye
Difficult and easy complete each other
Chang Duan Xiang Xing Ye
Long and short give form to each other
Gao Xia Xiang Ying Ye
High and low fulfill each other
Yin Sheng Xiang He Ye
Tone and sound harmonize with each other
Xian Hou Xiang Sui Ye
Former and latter comply with each other
(MWD)
(Heng Ye)
(These are constants)

Shi Yi Shengren Ju Wuwei Zhi Shi
Therefore Sages remain non-interfering in affairs
Xing Bu Yan Zhi Jiao
Proceed to teach with no words/speaking
Wan Wu Zuo Er Fu Shi Ye
The myriad things rise up yet Sages do not begin them
Wei Er Fu Zhi/Shi Ye
Act and yet do not serve them/make them dependent
OR (The myriad things) act and yet are not dependent on them (Sages)**
Cheng Gong Er Fu Ju
Complete their tasks and yet do not dwell on them
Fu Wei Fu Ju Ye
Now only because they do not dwell on them
Yin Yi Fu Qu Ye
Their fulfillment does not leave them.

* You and Wu here don’t necessarily refer to metaphysics (“being” and “non-being”). I do not believe they do here.
** A few lines back it says that Sages Wu Wei, so I find it difficult to interpret this Wei as being done by sages.

Commentary:
Chapter 2 of the Laozi is the premier example in classical Chinese literature of the interdependence and mutual relationship (Xiang) between opposites. “Perfection” (Mei), can, and usually is, translated as “beauty,” and like perfection, can only be understood in relation with something we consider less beautiful or less perfect. The above pairs of oppositions are completely dependent on each other to have any meaning or truth to them at all and thus are mutually-entailing. We cannot have a conception of what “good” is unless we have a conception of what “not good” is. Nothing can be considered long if we can’t compare it to something shorter. The same applies to high & low, beautiful & ugly, difficult & easy, in front & behind, male & female, life & death, Yin and Yang, day & night, etc. Good & bad and right & wrong are the same in that they are opposite poles on a single ideology of morality or valuation. As long as we use this system to differentiate between behaviour, motive or quality, we must realize that neither extreme can be eradicated without the other going with it as well: they are interdependent. The ancient Greek philosopher Heraclitus (6th century B.C.E.) also emphasized this fact when he asked, “without injustices, the name of justice would mean what?” (Fragments: The Collected Wisdom of Heraclitus by Brooks Haxton p. 39). Kahlil Gibran, in his 1923 book The Prophet wrote, “if any of you would punish in the name of righteousness and lay the ax unto the evil tree, let him see to its roots; And verily he will find the roots of the good and the bad, the fruitful and the fruitless, all entwined together in the silent heart of the earth.”

The message of chapter two of the Laozi is not that all these distinctions should be abandoned or that they are false, as some commentators would have (Lau p. 43), but rather that we understand that distinction-making and labeling is a convenient, yet ultimately artificial practice, and that we are making a relative distinction and judgment when we use such terms. We can’t avoid using distinctive names for things, but we need to “know when to stop” (Zhi Zhi) taking our distinctions too seriously (Laozi 32). With regards to beauty-ugliness and good-bad, these are socially-conditioned distinctions and values. These are things which Daoists tend not to place much weight in. They are elaborations on an essentially unbiased experience of existence, elaborations which can interfere with our relationships with things. We can go ahead and deem something beautiful or good without much problem, but it is necessary to realize that it is merely a subjective valuation which should not be allowed to be rigidly defined and fixed or forced on others. “Good” (Shan) most often means “good at, good to, good with” and “good for,” and usually context is vital to understanding the meaning. Here, it could mean any of these, thus allowing it to be translated: “as soon as everyone knows the able, there is ineptness” (Hall & Ames p. 80). Thus, what we call beautiful and good depends on what we call ugly and not-good. Although many of us share the same values, (at least within our local environment), all of these distinct oppositions are completely relative to each person’s perspective. The context that we make these distinctions in determines their meaning. They can never be absolutely determined and fixed. And because of this, Daoists don’t attempt to make anything fixed or unchanging.

Dao Is Open Site Map