Tao Te Ching (13-28)

Irony; usually, in the pages I read today, something was mentioned, say, being somehow beneficial, and then, mentioned again, but this time expressed as it if was foolish. Though I believe that in both cases, it is being talked of the same thing, perhaps it isn’t, it might only be using a similar/same term;

Therefore the ancients say, “Yield and overcome.”
Is that an empty saying?
Be really whole,
And all things will come to you.
(22)

What the chapter was speaking about before this, was about not doing anything, and getting everything, or the right reward. So, it’s good to be ‘empty’ instead of ‘full’. Better to rest, and therefore win. It is really ironic, but at the end it’s gets kind of normal, because I can find these kind of ‘do nothing’ thing around (as we learned in class: wu, and wu-wei).


Is there a difference between good and evil?
Must I fear what others fear? What nonsense!
(20)

So this is good; somehow, though we might not notice it, it is ‘nonsense’, that there is a definite good and evil. As there are different cultures and beliefs around the world, the view of what is evil and what is good might change, depending on culture. It might seem evil for the Catholics, to sacrifice themselves, as so did different Indian communities, a long time ago. But for these Indian cultures, it wasn’t evil. It was good. It was an act of bravery, and total devotion towards God. So there isn’t a difference. Because for some, scarifying may qualify as good, but for others, as bad. So they can represent the same thing, each term.

What is a good man?
A teacher of a bad man.
(27)

So this is complete irony. Didn’t it say, just above, how good and evil might define the same thing according to which your culture is? Perhaps it’s referring to what is good and evil for the Tao. What kind of ‘good’ and how much should a teacher be to be able to teach a ‘bad’ person, bad in what way? I couldn’t find any more citations that went more a fond in the topic, but I guess a good person, based on the Tao, is someone who is not proud, and that doesn’t feel superior. That doesn’t do anything without really needing to do it (wu-wei). So, as the total opposite, bad would be to have zero-modesty, and a desire to feel superior, standout, and overcome others. Of doing as much as possible, to be noticed.

For us, of the culture in which I live in, ‘good’ and ‘evil’ would be similar t owhat they mean for the Tao, except for the wu-wei part, because we con’t recognize someonethat doesn’t do something to be entirely good. In our culture (it could be said to be the school, serving as a very influential environment, or the ‘Latin’ culture itself), we would recognise this person as lazy. A hard-worker, instead of evil, for a person that lies to do extra work, or not leave everything for the last minute.

Irony; it’s confusing. But I guess it depends mainly on who you are and what is your point of view, what it’s influenced by.