"When the Master governs, the people are hardly aware ..."

[rotting bones]

You shouldn't interpret Daoist sages literally. Eg. the title presents a paradox, not an injunction. Its meaning may become clearer once you take into account Laozi's assumption that no sane person within the ancient Chinese zeitgeist could seriously entertain such notions as learning is harmful, government regulation is bad, etc. What then remains? Wei Wu Wei. Compare the Buddhist Prajnaparamita tradition which spells out quite explicitly that telling the rigid conceptual constructs and non-conceptual blanknesses that thinkers inevitably latch on to as True Understanding to go fuck themselves is the very essence of the free intellect. Regulation or non-regulation may be beneficial or harmful in the given circumstances depending on your objectives, but neither course represents some kind of an inherently righteous Supreme Ultimate. (...and it's that realization which produces good governmental "regulation", apparently) Of course, Taoism then goes on to posit a more subtle and abstract (and perhaps more to the point, poetically appealing) natural order in place of such crude human impositions, while Buddhism tries to avoid this route altogether (calling its own approach the "middle path" between "eternalism and nihilism") with debatable success. As always, lazy Rebels conveniently take these statements as validations of their willful ignorance and unreasonable aversion to authority of any description, while ironically relying on the authority of Ancient Masters who Knew.

[zompist]

Sorry, not seeing the relevance? I don't know if you're objecting to something, or elucidating, or what.

[rotting bones]

Sorry, not seeing the relevance? I don't know if you're objecting to something, or elucidating, or what.

Sorry, I'm looking at the middle of page 137 of the PCK.

[zompist]

Ah, OK. Well, I'm liable to make mistakes about any Chinese philosophical traditions. Still, my understanding is that except for a period in the Song dynasty, Daoists have rarely been directly close to power. They were an influence, not the center of the system, and thus had the freedom to criticize (and no responsibility to be practical).

Mote summarizes thus: "...there were other trends within Chinese thought that rejected essential aspects of the Confucian worldview. Most important of these was Daoism; which, while agreeing with the cosmology, was less human-centered, was philosophically amoral, and was powerfully negative about the Confucian social enterprise." Which is more or less what I was getting at in the brief mention in the PCK.

(FWIW I sometimes feel that attempts to explain Daoism always move away from what seems the bracing and witty acerbicity of Laozi. I think it's pretty clear the dude hated formulization, and if a disciple tried to formulize Laozi he'd surely earn a rap on the head. But that's obviously an outsider's impression.)

[rotting bones]

Still, my understanding is that except for a period in the Song dynasty, Daoists have rarely been directly close to power.

Well, the Celestial Masters even held a small theocracy in Sichuan at one point.

They were an influence, not the center of the system, and thus had the freedom to criticize (and no responsibility to be practical).

Taoists as a school didn't have nearly as much of an influence on imperial policy as Confucians did, but their ideas were omnipresent. It was also held in some esteem as China's native religion by Han scholars, especially after their infatuation with Buddhism had ground to a halt. It's just that policymakers mostly found Taoist ideas impractical for their purposes. If the ruling class did not pursue the establishment of order, they could have been blamed for an excess of yin rather than yang. It's easy to criticize when your ideal involves something so vague as all-round harmony.

Mote summarizes thus: "...there were other trends within Chinese thought that rejected essential aspects of the Confucian worldview. Most important of these was Daoism; which, while agreeing with the cosmology, was less human-centered, was philosophically amoral, and was powerfully negative about the Confucian social enterprise." Which is more or less what I was getting at in the brief mention in the PCK.

(FWIW I sometimes feel that attempts to explain Daoism always move away from what seems the bracing and witty acerbicity of Laozi. I think it's pretty clear the dude hated formulization, and if a disciple tried to formulize Laozi he'd surely earn a rap on the head. But that's obviously an outsider's impression.)

As a non-expert, I dare not speculate as to the opinions of Laozi. My report deals with a modern, possibly Buddhified exegesis of the Dao De Jing, so please do not take it as authoritative in any way. (and since when did I become an insider? (ie. become more than indirectly involved with insiders)) However, note the attitude towards morality revealed in this passage:

Confucius saw Lao Tan and on his return kept quiet for three days.

“Master, when you saw Lao Tan, what kind of advice did you give him?” asked his disciple.

“Give him advice?” replied Confucius. “For the first time I saw a dragon. When the dragon’s spirit converges, you see its form, and when it disperses it gives off a radiance of beauty, riding upon the clouds and feeding upon the Yin and Yang. When I saw him I was aghast and could not close my mouth.”

“Is it true then”, said Tsekung, “that there are such people who, according to reports, ‘can sit still like a corpse or spring into action like a dragon, be silent as the deep or talk with the voice of thunder’, people who spring into action like (the force of) the Universe? Do you think I can go and see him?”

With an introduction from Confucius, Tsekung went to see Lao Tan. The latter was sitting in his parlor and said with a thin voice, “I am now getting old. Do you have some advice for me?”

“The Three Kings and Five Emperors ruled the world in different ways, but all of them left a great name for themselves”, said Tsekung. “Why do you consider that they are not sages?”

“Come forward, young man”, said Lao Tan. “What do you mean when you say they ruled the world in different ways?”

“Emperor Yao gave his throne to Shun and Shun gave his throne to Yu”, replied Tsekung. “Emperor Yu devoted his labor to water conservation, and Emperor T’ang devoted his energy to wars. King Wen continued to serve his ruler, Chou, but his son King Wu raised the banner of rebellion. That is why I say they employed different methods to rule the world.”

“Come forward, young man”, said Lao Tan. “I will tell you about the governments of the Three Kings and Five Emperors. In the government under the Yellow Emperor, he encouraged simplicity of heart among his people. Some of his people did not weep when their parents died and it was not considered wrong. In the government under Emperor Yao, he encouraged affection among relatives. Some of his people killed the murderers of their parents, and it was not considered wrong. In the government under Emperor Shun, he encouraged competition. Babies were born after ten months of pregnancy, and an infant learned to talk in five months. Before he was already three years old, he could already learn to distinguish persons, and early death came to this world.

"In the government under Emperor Wu, he changed men’s hearts, and men began to have cunning in their hearts and armies were sent out to fight for some good cause. It was not considered wrong to kill robbers. Then race distinctions arose and each race considered itself living in a complete world by itself. Hence the world was thrown into great confusion and the Confucians and Motseans arose. At first, the discussion was around principles, but now they degenerate into womanish gossip.

"What can I say? I tell you, people speak of the Three Kings and Five Emperors ‘ruling’ the world, but in actuality they misruled. The knowledge that came with the Three Kings was contrary to the influence of the sun and the moon above, destructive of the energy of land and water below, and subversive to the operation of the seasonal forces in between. The knowledge is more poisonous than a scorpion’s tail, than the animal hsien-kuei. Henceforth the people are not able to fulfill peacefully the natural instincts of their lives. And yet these people regard themselves as sages. What a lack of shame!”

Tsekung stood there listening and felt ill at ease.

It seems the objection to the active promotion of virtue comes from the claim that it leads to unnatural acts. In all probability, the above would also be labelled a paradox, since what's being objected to is narrow "knowledge" obscuring the supreme, nameless Way. It's not so simple as Taoism being "amoral" unlike Confucianism and Buddhism, although the three traditions obviously sport incompatible ethical systems.

Since all the Ten Thousand Things, including formulation, have their origin in the Tao, the problem is not formulation itself but imbalance resulting in disharmony. The problem is, short-sighted non-formulation can itself end up becoming the same kind of one-sided separation. His modern disciples stress common sense, especially to distinguish themselves from the supposedly-heads-in-the-clouds Buddhists, but I have no idea how far or in what manner Laozi thought these things through.

[Salmoneus]

It's hard to know what Laozi thought about things - in large part because he's a mythical figure with little or no relevence to actual Taoism: he probably didn't exist (except perhaps as the teacher of Confucius), if he did exist he certainly didn't write the Daodejing or directly influence its writing, and it's debateable whether the Daodejing had any real direct influence over Taoism anyway (Taoist philosophy being derived from the Zhuangzi, with the Daodejing traditionally only playing a role when read through the lens, as it were, of the philosophy of the Zhuangzi).

My understanding is that there was no taoist school - the taoists covered a vast range of contradictory positions. Some were anarchists - others were authoritarians (and indeed some scholars believe that Daoism and Legalism were originally sister-systems).

It's probably true, though, that they were all anti-moral, where 'moral' refers to formulated principles of behaviour (as put forward by Confucians and Mohists). These seem to have been rejected by all Taoist factions.

[rotting bones]

in large part because he's a mythical figure with little or no relevence to actual Taoism: he probably didn't exist (except perhaps as the teacher of Confucius),

Of great significance but little "relevance", analogous to the manner in which actual words of the historical Buddha, if any, are of little relevance to Mahayana Buddhists. (though the (indirect) influence is probably great (ie. in the case of Buddhists))

if he did exist he certainly didn't write the Daodejing or directly influence its writing

However, this is no reason for the opinions held by the conventional "Laozi", writers of the DDJ, to be relevant or irrelevant to Taoism.

(Taoist philosophy being derived from the Zhuangzi, with the Daodejing traditionally only playing a role when read through the lens, as it were, of the philosophy of the Zhuangzi).

The Zhuangzi is itself a compilation of works expressing philosophies as diverse as pluralism, primitivism, naturalism, anarchism, etc.

My understanding is that there was no taoist school

Modern Chinese religions are said to display an extreme degree of syncretism as well as divergence, suggesting perhaps that they tend to converge and diverge in ways dissimilar to Western traditions.

the taoists covered a vast range of contradictory positions.

Much like Confucians, except their uniting principle was harmony in nature through Dao rather than harmony within society through Principle, so this seems a distinctly non-Taoist analysis to me. Taoists would say it's not at all surprising that upholding morality through spontaneity and the awareness of nature in different circumstances produces multifarious results. In fact, if one unified, non-contradictory Taoist "position" were produced through spontaneous convergence, it should be forgotten as soon as it spontaneously dissolved again. This doesn't indicate an attitude of stubborn non-formulation even when that's plainly what the situation calls for, it's a stance against the imposition of a straight and narrow code of Virtuous conduct upon society.

Some were anarchists - others were authoritarians

Some Zhuangzi texts are anarchist, others are not.

(and indeed some scholars believe that Daoism and Legalism were originally sister-systems).

The Guanzi is a prominent example of an intermediate text not easily classifiable as either Daoist or Legalist. I wonder if the relationship was anything like the one between American conservatives and libertarians.

It's probably true, though, that they were all anti-moral, where 'moral' refers to formulated principles of behaviour (as put forward by Confucians and Mohists). These seem to have been rejected by all Taoist factions.

Yes, they opposed the imposition of moral universalism for the most part. OTOH, Liezi says:

Hui Yang went to visit Prince K'ang of the Sung State. The Prince, however, stamped his foot, rasped his throat, and said angrily: 'The things I like are courage and strength. I am not fond of your good and virtuous people. What can a stranger like you have to teach me? 'I have a secret,' replied Hui Yang, 'whereby my opponent, however brave or strong, can be prevented from harming me either by thrust or by blow. Would not your Highness care to know that secret? 'Capital!' exclaimed K'ang; 'that is certainly something I should like to hear about.' Hui Yang went on: 'To render ineffectual the stabs and blows of one's opponent is indeed to cover him with shame. But my secret is one which will make your opponent, however brave or strong, afraid to stab or to strike at all! His being afraid, however, does not always imply that he has not the will to do so. Now, my secret method operates so that even the will is absent. Not having the will to harm, however, does not necessarily connote the desire to love and to do good. But my secret is one whereby every man, woman and child in the Empire shall be inspired with the friendly desire to love and do good to one another! This is something that transcends all social distinctions, and is much better than the mere possession of courage and strength. Has your Highness no mind to acquire such a secret as this?' 'Nay,' said the Prince, 'I am anxious to learn it. What is the secret, pray?' 'Nothing else,' replied Hui Yang, 'than the teachings of Confucius and Mo Tzu. (a famous philosopher who flourished about 400 B.C. and propounded, chiefly on utilitarian grounds, the doctrine of 'universal love') Neither of these two men possessed any land, and yet they were princes; they held no official rank, and yet they were leaders. All the inhabitants of the Empire, old and young, used to crane their necks and stand on tiptoe to catch a glimpse of them. For it was their object to bring peace and happiness to all. Now, your Highness is lord of ten thousand chariots. (a conventional way of saying that Sung was a feudal State of the first class) If you are sincere in your purpose, all the people within the four borders of your realm will reap the benefit, and the fame of your virtue will far exceed that of Confucius or of Mo Tzu.' (they not having enjoyed the advantage of ruling over a large State) The Prince of Sung found himself at loss for an answer, and Hui Yang quickly withdrew. Then the Prince turned to his courtiers and said: 'A forcible argument! This stranger has carried me away by his eloquence.'

Taoist sects were also instrumental in the preservation of the Mohist Classic. An acrimonious division of opinion was by no means absent in China, but it seems to have been based somewhat less on attachment to specific canons of thought to the exclusion of others than in the West.

Of course, this isn't how people generally understand the word "morality", since not supporting the uniform enforcement of Principle doesn't make humans moral nihilists or, necessarily, impractical anti-authoritarians any more than the iliu.

[Khvaragh]

It's hard to know what Laozi thought about things - in large part because he's a mythical figure with little or no relevence to actual Taoism: he probably didn't exist (except perhaps as the teacher of Confucius), if he did exist he certainly didn't write the Daodejing or directly influence its writing, and it's debateable whether the Daodejing had any real direct influence over Taoism anyway (Taoist philosophy being derived from the Zhuangzi, with the Daodejing traditionally only playing a role when read through the lens, as it were, of the philosophy of the Zhuangzi).

My understanding is that there was no taoist school - the taoists covered a vast range of contradictory positions. Some were anarchists - others were authoritarians (and indeed some scholars believe that Daoism and Legalism were originally sister-systems).

It's probably true, though, that they were all anti-moral, where 'moral' refers to formulated principles of behaviour (as put forward by Confucians and Mohists). These seem to have been rejected by all Taoist factions.

Based on what I've read, this does indeed same to be the case. Russell Kirkland, for example, argues that Laozi is more or less a cultural personification of ancient "wisdom literature" or perhaps even aphorisms. In other words, the Daodejing is a compilation work, had no single author, and only became relevant to Daoists later on - rather it's an example of philosophical/religious/cultural convergence, where the stuff in the "book" was similar to things which already appealed to the proto-Daoists. And yes, it seems incorrect to speak of a "Daoist school" (if indeed speaking about zhuzi baijia/so-called "hundred schools" is at all accurate an not merely easier than saying "these groups of people who agreed on stuff." Similar objections are raised to things like the "School of Isfahan" in the Islamic world as well). I'm hardly an expert on Chinese philosophy, just an amateur enthusiast, but I do recommend Kirkland's book "Taoism: the Enduring Tradition" where he looks at a lot of this stuff in detail.