I picked up Nietzsche’s The Genealogy of Morals (1887) yesterday and found a passage which immediately made me think of Laozi. Here’s Nietzsche, writing about the origins of the concept of “good” :

… the judgment good does not originate with those to whom the good has been done. Rather it was the “good” themselves, that is to say the noble, mighty, highly placed, and high-minded who decreed themselves and their actions to be good, i.e., belonging to the highest rank, in contradistinction to all that was base, low-minded and plebian. It was only this pathos of distance that authorized them to create values and name them … Such an origin would suggest that there is no a priori necessity for associating the word good with altruistic deeds, as those [English] moral psychologists are fond of claiming. In fact, it is only after aristocratic values have begun to decline that the egoism-altruism dichotomy takes possession of the human conscience …

Nietzsche goes on to mention that he discovered that the etymology of the word good in various languages always contains the basic concept of noble, “in the hierarchical, class sense …” and that “this development is strictly parallel to that other which eventually converted the notions common, plebian, base into the notion of bad.”

Ancient Daoists would scoff at the idea that goodness is the domain of the aristocrats. Laozi suggested that the great Dao has more in common with the lowly, that which lies unseen, neglected, at the foundation. The Daoists avoided using the aristocratic-flavoured term Junzi, which can be translated as Princely Person, Superior Person or Gentleman, as a term for their ideal human.

Peter Kropotkin argued in Modern Science and Anarchism (1901) that “… a scientific study … proves that usages and customs created by mankind for the sake of mutual aid, mutual defence, and peace in general, were precisely elaborated by the ‘nameless multitude.’ And it was these same customs that enabled man to survive in his struggle for existence … Science demonstrates to us that the so-called leaders, heroes, and legislators of humanity have added nothing to history beyond what had already been worked out by the Customary Law. The best of them have only put into words and sanctioned the institutions that already existed by habit and custom …”

It seems to me that this resembles Laozi’s view, to which he adds the observation that making morality explicit, makes it forced. Forced morality is far from ideal, and creates more problems. Authentic morality has been “worked out” by the “nameless masses” before any philosophers, religious authorities or heroes spoke of them.

It seems that many (e.g., Daoists, Mohists, Legalists) felt the Ru, (which includes the Confucians) took themselves too seriously, were self-righteous, and looked down on the plebian, common people, the Little People (Xiaoren).

But, pages later, Nietzsche seems to think this view is appalling, as he blames the Jews and Christians for inverting the aristocratic value system as those who began this “grand and unspeakably disastrous initiative”: “It was the Jew who, with frightening consistency, dared to invert the aristocratic value equations good/noble/powerful/beautiful/happy/favored-of-the-gods and maintain, with the furious hatred of the underprivileged and impotent, that ‘only the poor, the powerless, are good; only the suffering, sick, and ugly, truly blessed …’”

Zhuangzi gave examples such as crippled and deformed people, those who had lowly occupations such as butchers, and those of ancient times who were uncivilized, plain and lived at one with Nature as those who might be better regarded as “good,” or better off.

I could go on, but, I will not.

—————

A more simple and natural man it would be hard to find. Vice and disease, which cast such a sombre moral hue over the world, seemed to have hardly any existance for him…

He came along early, crossing my bean-field, though without anxiety or haste to get to his work, such as Yankees exhibit. He wasn’t a-going to hurt himself. He didn’t care if he only earned his board…

He was a skilful chopper, and indulged in some flourishes and ornaments in his art. He cut his trees level and close to the ground, that the sprouts which came up afterward might be more vigorous and a sled might slide over the stumps …

He interested me because he was so quiet and solitary and so happy withal; a well of good humor and contentment which overflowed at his eyes. His mirth was without alloy. Sometimes I saw him at his work in the woods, felling trees, and he would greet me with a laugh of inexpressible satisfaction, and a salutation in Canadian French, though he spoke English as well. When I approached him he would suspend his work, and with half-suppressed mirth lie along the trunk of a pine which he had felled, and, peeling off the inner bark, roll it up into a ball and chew it while he laughed and talked. Such an exuberance of animal spirits had he that he sometimes tumbled down and rolled on the ground with laughter at anything which made him think and tickled him…

In him the animal man chiefly was developed. In physical endurance and contentment he was cousin to the pine and the rock … But the intellectual and what is called spiritual man in him were slumbering as in an infant…

He was so genuine and unsophisticated that no introduction would serve to introduce him, more than if you introduced a woodchuck to your neighbor. He had got to find him out as you did. He would not play any part. Men paid him wages for work, and so helped to feed and clothe him; but he never exchanged opinions with them. He was so simply and naturally humble — if he can be called humble who never aspires — that humility was no distinct quality in him, nor could he conceive of it…

I heard that a distinguished wise man and reformer asked him if he did not want the world to be changed; but he answered with a chuckle of surprise in his Canadian accent, not knowing that the question had ever been entertained before, “No, I like it well enough.” It would have suggested many things to a philosopher to have dealings with him. To a stranger he appeared to know nothing of things in general; yet I sometimes saw in him a man whom I had not seen before, and I did not know whether he was as wise as Shakespeare or as simply ignorant as a child, whether to suspect him of a fine poetic consciousness or of stupidity. A townsman told me that when he met him sauntering through the village in his small close-fitting cap, and whistling to himself, he reminded him of a prince in disguise…

I loved to sound him on the various reforms of the day, and he never failed to look at them in the most simple and practical light … He could defend many institutions better than any philosopher, because, in describing them as they concerned him, he gave the true reason for their prevalence, and speculation had not suggested to him any other…

One winter day I asked him if he was always satisfied with himself, wishing to suggest a substitute within him for the priest without, and some higher motive for living. “Satisfied!” said he; “some men are satisfied with one thing, and some with another. One man, perhaps, if he has got enough, will be satisfied to sit all day with his back to the fire and his belly to the table, by George!” Yet I never, by any manoeuvring, could get him to take the spiritual view of things; the highest that he appeared to conceive of was a simple expediency, such as you might expect an animal to appreciate; and this, practically, is true of most men. If I suggested any improvement in his mode of life, he merely answered, without expressing any regret, that it was too late. Yet he thoroughly believed in honesty and the like virtues.

There was a certain positive originality, however slight, to be detected in him, and I occasionally observed that he was thinking for himself and expressing his own opinion, a phenomenon so rare that I would any day walk ten miles to observe it, and it amounted to the re-origination of many of the institutions of society. Though he hesitated, and perhaps failed to express himself distinctly, he always had a presentable thought behind. Yet his thinking was so primitive and immersed in his animal life, that, though more promising than a merely learned man’s, it rarely ripened to anything which can be reported. He suggested that there might be men of genius in the lowest grades of life, however permanently humble and illiterate, who take their own view always, or do not pretend to see at all; who are as bottomless even as Walden Pond was thought to be, though they may be dark and muddy.

Guodian Laozi 

絕聖棄辯，民利百倍。

絕巧棄利，盜賊亡有。

絕(為+心)棄慮，民復季慈。
—————————–

Received Laozi

絕聖棄智，民利百倍；

絕仁棄義，民復孝慈；

絕巧棄利，盜賊無有

—————————–

Robert Henricks asks:

“Is the Guodian chapter (A1 / 19) the original form of the chapter, which was changed at some point to make the chapter more pointedly anti-Confucian? Or, is the wording in later editions the original wording, meaning that the Guodian chapter was altered by someone who wished to downplay the anti-Confucian tone of the book? Recall that the other texts found in this tomb were predominantly Confucian.”

He continues:

"One question raised is whether these two questions sum up all our options. It is conceivable, after all, that there never was an ‘original’ version of the Laozi. That is, given the work of Michael LaFargue and others who point to signs of ‘orality’ in so many parts of this book (three- to four-line series that are metric, parallel, and rimed), it is possible that slightly different versions of some of these chapters, or portions of chapters, circulated in China before any form of the text was written down. Moreover, different versions of parts of the text could have been written down, for the first time, at different times in different parts of the country.” (Lao Tzu’s Tao Te Ching: A Translation of the Startling New Documents Found at Guodian p. 13)

Henricks (p. 14), Qiu Xigui (The Guodian Laozi p. 61) and Chen Guying (The Guodian Laozi p. 161) all take the first suggestion, that the original Laozi text was not anti-Confucian. I don’t see how we can be sure, one way or the other. Perhaps the safest position to take is the third, that there existed different versions circulating at the same time. Any opinions are welcome.

This deity (or these spirits) had the power to favour one clan over others and showed approval - sometimes recorded as being spoken by Tian or the Lord on High (Shijing, Shangshu) - by sanctioning their ascendance as rulers with its Mandate (Ming 命). It is repeatedly stated in many sources that Heaven’s criteria for receiving the Mandate is the quality of one’s De, one’s personal character and conduct (Shangshu: 皇天無親，惟德是輔。, Zuozhuan, Huainanzi). One’s fate is determined by one’s character (Cf. Heraclitus). If those who held authority had flawed De-characters (爽德) or were incorrigibly bad (滔) they should expect to be “replaced.” This was the Will of Heaven (Tian Zhi 天志). Of course, once one believes that they are chosen by God it is much easier to hide behind this to justify absolutely anything one wants to do. Abuse of this power had been witnessed over the centuries as leading to inevitable defeat, and rulers who had treated their subjects well enjoyed more lasting peace and prosperity. So, “incorrigibly bad” (or “good”) should be understood in this (common sense) way.

In this sense, for one’s De to match that of Heaven means the quality of one’s De-character is exactly what Heaven wants and approves of. With regards to “efficacy,” this suggests that one has what it takes to influence people - or “get” or “co-opt” (De 得) them - mostly notably by having goodwill towards them and to benefit (利) or nurture (畜/育/養) them, but also included a sense of awe or gravitas (Wei 威).

Numerous early texts explain that Heaven can reward and punish people, if it so chooses. This belief goes back at least to the Shang Dynasty, as seen on oracle bone inscriptions. Early on, the words used were Shang 賞 reward and Fa 罰 punish, but De 德 reward and Xing 刑 punish, and Fu 福 good fortune and Huo 禍 misfortune are also found. As we can see, De occupies the same semantic field as reward (Shang) and good fortune (Fu).

[In fact, in the Laozi, chapter 65 says “Not using so-called wisdom to order the state is a Fu-benefit to the state” (不以智治國，國之福), but the ancient Mawangdui texts of the Laozi (and the Wenzi) say “Not using so-called wisdom to order the state is a De-benefit to the state” (不以智治國，國之德也). This variation is also explained by the fact the two words once rhymed: De 德 *tək and Fu 福 *pək. Whether De or Fu, the idea being conveyed is the same. See also Shijing ode #260, “De is light as a hair ” (德輶如毛) and Zhuangzi 4, “Fu is light as a feather” (福輕乎羽).]

Mozi, an ancient philosopher, spoke often of the Will of Heaven (天志/天之意) and the rewards (賞) and punishments (罰) it can, and will send down accordingly. But other thinkers, tending towards naturalism, regard the rewards (德) and punishments (刑) of Heaven as natural seasonal “forces.” In spring and summer, when life is flourishing, this is the time of De 德 benefic power. In autumn and winter, when living things lose their life (or hibernate), this is the time of Xing 刑 malefic power (Guanzi, Huangdi Sijing). These “naturalists” then applied this “logic” to the political realm and decided that the ruler should give out “rewards” (德) in the spring and punishments (刑) (and “righteous” foreign attacks) in the autumn and winter. And, at approximately the same time (or later), these natural seasonal forces were, in a sense deified and were treated by calendrical specialists as spirits (Kalinowski).

Tian De (天德), which we sometimes find, means, I think, either 1) the potency or character(istics) of Nature, 2) Supernal De (character, moral excellence, power), or “a De which was considered to meet Heaven’s approval.”

1 One who harbours De’s fullness can be compared with a newborn infant.
2 Wasps, scorpions and poisonous snakes do not sting or bite it,
3 Fierce beasts do not seize it, nor do birds of prey pounce upon it.
4 Its bones are fragile and muscles are soft, yet its grasp is firm.
5 It does not know about the sexual union of male and female, and yet it can be aroused,
6 Such is the height of its potent essence (virility).
7 It can cry a whole day and yet does not get hoarse,
8 Such is the height of its harmony.

Lines two and three seem to be hyperbole, intending to suggest the pacifying “power” an infant can possess. In the Zuozhuan, De is said to “pacify, comfort” (Sui 綏) the feudal lords, “comfort” (Fu 撫) the people and “harmonize” (He 和) the people. The infant does this, not by “dispensing benefits” (Shi Hui 施惠), but by it’s demeanour of non-contention and calm (and innocence). Or, I am wondering, can two and three be referring back to “the one who harbours De’s fullness” rather than the infant? If he or she can be like an infant, described next (lines 4 to 8), they will have a pacifying power.

Allyn Rickett translates:
“Power is a dwelling of the Way. Things must obtain it in order to live. The living must know how to obtain it in order to grasp the essence of the Way. Therefore, Power is obtainment, and obtainment refers to obtaining the means for things to be what they are. When nonassertive, we call it ‘the Way.’ When dwelling in things, we call it ‘the Power.’ Therefore, the Way and Power cannot be separated, and so those who talk about them treat them as the same. The reason for distinguishing between them is to indicate that in which the Way dwells.” (Rickett p. 77)
– Note: Rickett follows Guo Moruo in emending 其謂所得以然也 to 謂得其所以然也 and follows others in deleting the “以” in 以無為之謂道”.”

Harold Roth translates:
“Inner Power is the lodging place of the Way. Things attain it and are thereby born. The living attain it and thereby understand the vital essence of the Way. Therefore ‘Inner Power’ is to attain. ‘To attain’ means to attain the means by which things are so. It is what does not act that is called the Way. It is what lodges (the Way), that is called Inner Power. Therefore, there is no gap between the Way and Inner Power. Therefore to speak of them is not to separate them. That there is no gap between them addresses how Inner Power lodges the Way.” Harold Roth (Sources of Chinese Tradition p. 262)

There’s a few differences. I’m unsure about the translation of a few things, for example “It is what lodges (the Way), that is called Inner Power” (舍之之謂德). Does anyone reading this (if there is anyone), have any comments?

Note: She 舍 a dwelling, abode; to dwell, to lodge, to rest also is used in the Guanzi to refer to the heart-mind, which needs to be kept clean.

I have a few good dictionaries and know of many useful online dictionaries to utilize when one wants to translate or look up a word from the Classical period of Chinese literature. I’m going to list them here and perhaps someone else who reads this can give ME some suggestions. And for the record, I’m am amateur reader of classical Chinese and/but can’t really read modern Chinese. As a result, Chinese-to-Chinese dictionaries are only useful to me if I can make some sense of it. Also I should note, I only work with Traditional Chinese character forms (Fantizi 繁體字).

1) Kangxi Zidian 康熙字典 (1716 C.E.) should be one’s first stop, IMHO. An excellent site, Han Dian 漢典 (www.zdic.net), will give you entries from the Kangxi Zidian (which includes the Erya 爾雅, Shuowen Jiezi 說文解字, Guangyun 廣韻, Yu Pian 玉篇, and others) At the Zdic.net interface I use, I enter a Chinese character and I get access to the Kangxi, the Shuowen, pictures of the graph’s evolution, and some Chinese and English meanings (which aren’t often useful). A typical (multi-tabbed) entry is like this one:
http://www.zdic.net/zd/zi/ZdicE4ZdicB9Zdic85.htm

The Shuowen Jiezi is also available elsewhere online (for instance: http://shuowen.chinese99.com/). As is the Kangxi Zidian (for instance: http://www.kangxizidian.com/index2.php).
– Neither the Shuowen nor the Kangxi are translated into English.

2) I always use Axel Schuessler’s Etymological Dictionary of Old Chinese, which is a true etymological dictionary, giving phonetic reconstructions of Old (Shanggu Hanyu 上古漢語), Middle (Zhonggu Hanyu 中古漢語), etc. Chinese. It also provides cognates within and without ancient Chinese, English meanings, where one can find examples in the Classical literature, dialect forms, etc. He says his English glosses “are mostly taken from, or are based on, Karlgren’s GSR, Schuessler’s Dictionary of Early Zhou Chinese, Gudai Hanyu Cidian 古代漢語詞典, edited by Chen Fuhua 陳復華 (Beijing 1999) and the Zhongwen Dacidian 中文大辭典” [Morohashi Tetsuji?].” As a bonus he also usually provides William Baxter’s Old Chinese reconstructions. I would also use his A Dictionary of Early Zhou Chinese, but I can’t find one at this time.

3) At Shuhai Wenyuan’s website (http://www.shuhai.hawaii.edu/), there is access to full Chinese texts (from the CHANT Database), Edwin Pulleyblank’s Outline of Classical Chinese Grammar (which, I believe, is an authorative book on Classical Chinese grammar), William Baxter’s 1992 reconstructions of Old Chinese pronunciations, John DeFrancis’ ABC Chinese-English Dictionary, Charles Muller’s CJKV-English Dictionary, and some various other resources (like what Roger Ames or James Legge wrote about a particular word). Muller’s dictionary is fairly helpful with ancient meanings. The website is unfinished, partially dysfunctional, and sometimes inaccessible, but still I find it useful. Muller’s dictionary is also available elsewhere on the internet for example:
http://www.buddhism-dict.net/dealt/

4) Lin Yutang’s Dangdai Hanying Cidian 當代漢英詞典 is also one of my favourites, despite the fact that the title refers to modern usage. However, many entries contain “ancient meanings” (AC), and the various meanings, idioms and phrases I have found quite helpful. This dictionary is available online at:
http://humanum.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/Lexis/Lindict/

5) I usually access Lin Yutang’s Dangdai Hanying Cidian from another site, Zhendic by Wengu, by clicking “LD.”
http://afpc.asso.fr/wengu/wg/zhendic.php

At Zhendic, one can search by entering an English word, a Chinese character (not Simplified) or its pinyin transliteration. This is actually my homepage. From Zhendic, one can also view Zhongwen.com’s website on a side frame, which is useful as well. In addition to being able to access Lin Yutang’s dictionary mentioned above, a link to the Unihan database’s entry for the specified word is also provided. Another good feature of Zhendic is there is a search box at the bottom where you can enter a number of Chinese characters at once and get back a full translation of all of them.

6) ChineseEtymology.org (http://www.chineseetymology.org/) is a useful site, (although I remain skeptical about many of the explanations of the graphs. [Whether the graphs themselves are helpful to understanding the words, really depends on the word. Sometimes it is very illuminating, other times the dictionary author is too imaginative. For instance, there are many characters whose phonetic component should not be forced to also provide semantic information about the word’s meaning.] The English meanings given are somewhat useful. The (usually) large number of written versions are great, including Oracle Bone Script, Bronze Script and Seal Script.

7) Gilbert Mattos and Jerry Norman’s Chinese Writing is an English translation of Qui Xigui’s Wenzixue Gaiyao 文字學概要 which has has some essential information on many words/graphs and meaning, which thankfully are all listed in an index.

8 ) The CCDICT is accessible at Chineselanguage.org:
http://www.chineselanguage.org/dictionaries/ccdict/index.php?lang=en

The English meanings are less helpful, but other dialect information and other stuff is sometimes useful.

9) Xu Zhongshu’s 徐中舒 Oracle Bone Script Dictionary (Jiaguwen Zidian 甲骨文字典) is sometimes useful (to me) as well. It contains no English however.

10) Donald Sturgeon’s Chinese Text Project site has a good dictionary, which “merges data from three sources: the Unicode Consortium’s “Unihan” database, the Ancient Text Database, and the CTP Dictionary which is being developed for this site”:
http://chinese.dsturgeon.net/dictionary.pl?if=en

The CTP part of the dictionary lists the various different meanings and readings of a given character and lists exemplary usage for each from the classical literature. Very time-saving!

11) Shuowenjiezi.com is a good Chinese-Chinese website dictionary that has links to many different references, such as the Shuowen Jiezi (of course), the Unihan database, CNS, the Kangxi Zidian 康熙字典 (a scanned image), the Hanyu Dazidian 漢語大字典, Karlgren’s rhyming words, the Yiti Zidian 異體字典 (showing character variants), the Guangyun, Erya, Shiming and Fangyan. It also has examples from Jinwen (bronze script) and Jiaguwen (oracle-bone script).

There’s a Hanyu Zidian online, which seems to be useful. I don’t don’t much about it though.
http://zidian.teachercn.com/

—————- ———— ————————
I don’t have the oft-mentioned Chinese-English Dictionary by Robert Mathews. I’m not sure it would be more useful than anything I’ve already got/have access to. (Professor Elman of Princeton doesn’t recommend it.)

Is the Hanyu Dacidian 漢語大詞典 online?

是故此氣也，不可止以力，而可安以德。不可呼以聲，而可迎以意。敬守勿失，是謂成德，德成而智出，萬物畢得。

Therefore this Qi,
Cannot be restrained by force (*rək),
Yet can be steadied/calmed by De (*tək).
Cannot be summoned by speech,
Yet can be welcomed by conscious awareness (*ʔəkh).
Respectfully preserve it and do not lose it,
This is called ‘maturing one’s De (*tək),’
One’s De maturing, wisdom emerges,
The myriad things will be fully grasped (*tək).

– The translation is mine, based on translators W. Allyn Rickett and Harold Roth. The words in parentheses are the ancient phonetic reconstructions to show that rhyme is being use. It’s in these cases, I believe, that we should careful about reading characters too literally. They may not be intended that way. Or they just might.
– One’s inner power (De) is said to “welcome/secure/calm/stabilize” the inflow of Qi. (An 安 here is probably best understood as “steady” [Schuessler p. 150] and could be read as An 按 “to cause to be settled, calmed.” Roth translates it as “to secure”; Rickett: “to bring to rest”) De here could mean “calm disposition” as it apparently does in the Zhuangzi. (For Zhuangzi, a calm atmosphere or situation was perceived to exist when a person with De was present.) Therefore, the text states, when a person is in a peaceful state (a state of De), Qi can be inhaled/imbibed/absorbed. Li 力 and De 德 are contrasted: Li is brute strength or force whereas De is inner strength or the capacity to pacify (incoming vitalizing vapour: Qi 氣, and probably other people too). Both De and Li may have a common origin in the sense of strength, power, force: one inner, one external. Although, William Baxter says they aren’t cognate.
– I am tempted to interpret the second instance of De as “character”: when Qi is preserved within, we build/mature/complete our character (Cheng De 成德) and when this occurs, wisdom also develops (智出). Qi 氣 can be lost (Shi 失), but if it is not, then we will “mature,” “completely realize,” “develop” or “build” (Cheng 成 *gieŋ) our De, our “calm disposition” and have a thriving inner power, or, build (Cheng 成) “character.” But I’m, not sure. On the surface, it looks strange to say that Qi 氣 can be calmed by De (可安以德) and then say that this whole process can be called 成德. It seems that the two De’s might not be referring to the exact same thing, (despite being in the same “sentence”). Thoughts anyone?
– Cheng may imply its cognate Sheng 盛 “abundant, flourishing, great” ala Zhuangzi 27 “the fullest De appears deficient” (盛德若不足), spoken by Laozi; the Hanfeizi 20 “being empty/open, De is abundant/flourishing” (虛，則德盛); Mengzi (盛德), Yijing Xici (盛德, 德之盛), Liji (盛德), Huainanzi (盛德), Heguanzi (德之盛), the Xinshu (盛德). Cheng De 成德 appears in the Chunqiu Fanlu 55, Guoyu, Zuozhuan, Zhuangzi, Shangshu, Guanyinzi…
– Whether 成 or 盛 the idea is of De maturing, flourishing, developing, reaching abundance. This could refer to one’s character or one’s inner strength/power, which is dependent upon an inner calm. Put another way, Qi-energy enhances and/or matures one’s innate inner strength, the same innate inner strength needed to “calm it.” Zhuangzi made a related claim: “De is the (the result of) cultivation of complete/flourishing harmony/peace.” (德者，成和之脩也.)

The text goes on to mention: “Daily we make use of our/it’s De” (日用其德)
– Might refer to the Dao’s De (道之德); thus, meaning Inherent power, vitality, potency, or “stock of credit”?
– And daily we need to renew it (日新其德), as the text says later on. Then:

形不正，德不來，中不靜，心不治。正形攝(var. 飾/飭)德，則淫然而自來。

“If one’s mind and body are not correct or upright, De will not arrive, one will not be calm in one’s centre, and one’s heart and mind will be out of control. If one’s mind and body are correct and upright and one gathers up De, it [De? an orderly mind?] will “soak in” and arrive naturally.”

– The first part: Zheng means “to correct, to rectify” and “upright, correct” – Rickett adopts this meaning because he believes this text is about the mind (not the body), whereas Roth, “to square up, or to align” (p. 4, 109), believes it is about sitting correctly or aligned (in meditation). Roth takes (德不來) to be caused by (形不正) and (心不治) to be caused by (中不靜), thus making a correlation between one’s physical form and one’s De (and between 靜 and 治).
– She 攝 means : to assist, to collect, to absorb, to gather up, to attract, to regulate, “to conserve (life, energy)” (Lindict) – Shesheng 攝生 is “the art of conserving life energy.”
Roth (p. 66) translates it as “assists” and Rickett (p. 45) “hold on to.”

– De is portrayed as something which can arrive (from where?). It is also something which can be “gathered up” or assisted by being Zheng 正. Elsewhere in the Neiye and related chapters, it is Dao (道), Shen (神) or Jing (精) that arrives (來).

– De is the power or inner strength that manifests from a calm centre or “inner peace.” Here De is also spoken of as a synonym for Dao, which itself seems to be a synonym of Jing 精 or Qi 氣 or even Shen 神 and He 和. This is because all five of the above are considered to be external to us in a sense, necessitating some sort of self-cultivation practice to prepare ourselves to be “filled with” Dao, De, Jing, Qi, or Shen. These are treated as substances. This “self-cultivation” is primarily the practice of remaining calm inside and acutely perceptive (allowing the “myriad things to be fully grasped” 萬物畢得 and 遍知天下，窮於四極). In this way, the adept will notice the manifestation or “filling with” a power that allows him or her to perceive with absolute clarity and his or her actions will be completely effective and appropriate, backed by an extraordinary inner strength or power. This is a Quietist approach to living, which most of the ancient Daoist texts affirm. This shows the shamanic/mediumistic roots (i.e., what enters one’s body is like a spirit 神 entering a medium), the mystical development (i.e., sharing in the same energy as the entire universe in a profound union), and the practical manifestations of Daoism (i.e., one will find that everything that one does is always effective and appropriate).

Later:
敬慎無忒，日新其德，遍知天下，窮於四極，敬發其充，是謂內得。

“Respectful and mindful (*t’ək), daily renewing one’s De (*tək), fully knowing the four corners of the world (*gək), respectful and expressive of one’s full capacity: this is called ‘Inner Achievement/De (*tək).”
— “Inner obtainment” (Nei De 內得) could point to “Inner Power (Nei De 內德),” which occurs in the Xinshu Xia … the Xinshu Shang below says that De is De (德者得也).
– Russel Kirkland observes: “the Nei-yeh – unlike the more familiar ‘Lao-Chuang’ texts – states that one’s De is something that one must work on, each and every day.”

Later:
…不以物亂官，不以官亂心，是謂中得。
“… not letting things confuse the senses, not letting the senses confuse the mind; this is called ‘Inner achievement.”
The Xinshu Xia, a sort of commentary on the Nei ye, has:
是故曰，無以物亂官毋以官亂心此之謂內德。
“Hence, it is said: ‘Do not let thing confuse the senses; do not let the senses confuse the mind.’ This is called inner Power.” (Rickett p. 59)
– Being confused/disordered (Luan 亂) is not conducive to having De. Being ordered (Zheng 正) and calm (Jing 靜) fosters De.
Inner Peace = Inner Power, Inner Strength (i.e., De 德). (Nei De 內德 appears once in Shiji 49 and twice in the Hanshu.)

The Xinshu Xia also has:
正靜不失，日新其德，昭知天下，通於四極。
“Since good judgment [rectification] and quiescence are never lost, he daily renews his De. He is brilliant in knowing the entire world and penetrates its four extremities.” Rickett p. 62

– De is something which needs daily replenishing – just like Qi or Jing – by means of inner calm and an aligned body. And results in perceptual clarity. De 德 = Inner Strength Inner Power Potency.

The notion of daily renewing our De is also found in the Shang Shu 尚書: “Zhong Hui Zhi Gao 仲虺之誥” – The Announcements of Zhong Hui:
德日新．萬邦惟懷．志自滿．九族乃離．
“When his De is renewed daily, the myriad states harbour affection for him alone. When he is self-satisfied and conceited, the nine clans/generations will abandon him.”
– De is the opposite of self-satisfaction (Ziman 自滿); thus, it connotes selflessness and/or the continual practice of generosity and humility. Perhaps De is here “goodwill, kindly attitude and behaviour.” This may be unrelated to the Nei Ye’s reference to renewing De.

Not Dao? Not in harmony with the Dao? Is it possible? Here’s some of the things we find:

Zhongyong

道也者，不可須臾離也，可離非道也。

“The Dao cannot be left for an instant; If it could be left, it would not be Dao.”

Daodejing, Robert Henricks translations:

Daodejing 1

As for the Dao, the Dao that can be spoken of is not the constant Dao 非常道.

DDJ 8

The highest good is like water;
Water is good at benefiting the ten thousand things and yet it [does not] compete [with them].
It dwells in places the masses of people detest,
Therefore it is close to the Dao.
In dwelling, the good thing is the land;
In the mind, the good thing is depth;
In giving, the good thing is [being like] Heaven;
In speaking, the good thing is sincerity;
In governing, the good thing is order;
In affairs, the good thing is ability;
In activity, the good thing is timeliness.
It is only because it does not compete, that therefore it is without fault.

–therefore, the opposite behaviour and attributes are “far from the Dao”?

DDJ 9

To hold it upright and fill it,
Is not so good as stopping [in time].
When you pound it out and give it a point,
It won’t be preserved very long.
When gold and jade fill your rooms,
You’ll never be able to protect them.
Arrogance and pride with wealth and rank,
On their own bring on disaster.
When the deed is accomplished you retire;
Such is Heaven’s Dao!

– Thus the morals being: sustain some level of emptiness within, do not over-self-cultivate/ carve your Uncarved Wood (pu), do not burden yourself with luxuries, a humble attitude lessens one’s suffering, do what is needed - no more. Doing the opposite is not Nature’s Dao - it is the Human Dao - and is not in accord with the Dao?

DDJ 14

– The Dao is invisible, inaudible, intangible, boundless, formless. The opposites are Not-Dao? –
(Also Zhuangzi 22: The Dao cannot be heard; heard, it is not the Dao 非(道). The Dao cannot be seen; seen, it is not the Dao. The Dao cannot be described; described, it is not the Dao. That which gives form to the formed is itself formless - can you understand that? There is no name that fits the Dao.)

DDJ 18

When the Great Dao is rejected, it is then that we have the virtues of humanity and righteousness.

– Thus ” the virtues of humanity and righteousness” are Not Dao?
(Also ZZ 9: If the Dao and its Virtue had not been cast aside 道德不廢, how would there be any call for benevolence and righteousness?… That the Dao and its Virtue were destroyed 毀道德 in order to create benevolence and righteousness - this was the fault of the [Confucian?] sage. - Watson)

DDJ 24

One who boasts is not established;
One who shows himself off does not become prominent;
One who puts himself on display does not brightly shine;
One who brags about himself gests no credit;
One who praises himself does not long endure.
In the Dao, such things are called:
“Surplus food and redundant action.”
And with things-there are those who hate them.
Therefore, the one with the Dao in them does not dwell.

– Therefore, “surplus food and redundant action” are Not Dao?

DDJ 30

When things reach their primes, they get old;
We called this “not the Dao.”
What is not the Dao 不道 will come to an early end.
(since Bu is used only with verbs, this should probably be translated “what does not follow the Dao will come to an early end.”)

DDJ 31

As for weapons-they are instruments of ill omen.
And among things there are those that hate them.
Therefore, the one who has the Dao, with them does not dwell.

– Therefore one who “dwells with weapons” is not in accord with the Dao?

DDJ 34

The Dao floats and drifts;
It can go left or right.
It accomplishes its tasks and completes its affairs, and yet for this it is not given a name [fame].
The ten thousand things entrust their lives to it, and yet it does not act as their master.
Thus it is constantly without desires.
It can be named with the things that are small.
The ten thousand things entrust their lives to it, and yet it does not act as their master.
It can be named with the things that are great.

– Thus what acquires fame, acts as a master over others, has desires, is Not Dao?

DDJ 38

Therefore, when the Dao is lost, only then do we have virtue;
When virtue is lost, only then do we have humanity;
When humanity is lost, only then do we have righteousness;
And when righteousness is lost, only then do we have propriety.
As for propriety, it’s but the thin edge of loyalty and sincerity, and the beginning of disorder.
And foreknowledge is but the flower of the Dao, and the beginning of stupidity.
Therefore the Great Person
Dwells in the thick and doesn’t dwell in the thin;
Dwells in the fruit and doesn’t dwell in the flower.
Therefore, he rejects that and takes this.

– Therefore there is is a path which leads away from the Dao? - is not in accord with the Dao?
(Also ZZ 22: So it is said, When the Dao was lost 失道, then there was virtue; when virtue was lost, then there was benevolence; when benevolence was lost, then there was righteousness; when righteousness was lost, then there were rites. Rites are the frills of the Dao and the forerunners of disorder.)

DDJ 46

When the world has the Dao, ambling horses are retired to fertilize [fields].
When the world lacks the Dao 無道, war horses are reared in the suburbs.

DDJ 51

The Dao gives birth to them, nourishes them, matures them, completes them, rests them, rears them, supports them, and protects them.
It gives birth to them but doesn’t try to own them;
It acts on their behalf but doesn’t make them dependent;
It matures them but doesn’t rule them.

– Thus, what tries to own others, makes them dependent, and tries to rule them, is Not Dao?

DDJ 53

The Great Dao is very level;
But people greatly delight in tortuous paths.
The courts are swept very clean;
While the fields are full of weeds;
And the granaries are all empty.
Their clothing-richly embroidered and colored;
While at their waists they carry sharp swords.
They gorge themselves on food, and of possessions and goods they have plenty.
This is called thievery!
And thievery certainly isn’t the Dao! 非道

– Therefore, following the tortuous and unlevel paths are Not Dao? Living in luxury at the expense of the people is thievery = Not Dao?

DDJ 55

When things reach their prime they get old;
This is called “not the Dao.” 不道
What is not the Dao will come to an early end.
See chapter 30 above

DDJ 73

The Dao of Heaven is not to fight yet to be good at winning-
Not to speak yet skillfully respond-

– What fights/competes is Not Dao?

DDJ 77

Therefore the Dao of Heaven-
Is to reduce the excessive and increase the insufficient;
The Dao of Humanity-
Is to reduce the insufficient and offer more to the excessive.

– Thus the Dao of Humanity is Not Dao? The Dao of humanity does not accord with the Dao of Heaven.
(Also ZZ 11: What is this thing called the Dao? There is the Dao of Heaven, and the Dao of Humanity. To rest in inaction, and command respect - this is the Dao of Heaven. To engage in action and become entangled in it - this is the Dao of Humanity. The ruler is the Dao of Heaven; his subjects are the Dao of Humanity. The Dao of Heaven and the Dao of Humanity are far apart. This is something to consider carefully!)

DDJ 81

Therefore, the Dao of Heaven is to benefit and not cause any harm.

– What causes harm is Not Dao?

ZZ 2
The Great Dao is not praised …
The Dao that displays itself is not the Dao 不道.
(since Bu is used only with verbs, perhaps it should be translated: “Daos that display themselves do not dao-guide.”

ZZ 4

The Dao gathers in emptiness alone.

– Thus, fullness is Not Dao? To be full is to have no access to the Dao?

ZZ 4

When the world has the Dao, the sage succeeds; when the world is without the Dao 無道, the sage [merely] survives.

ZZ 6

The True Person of ancient times knew nothing of loving life, knew nothing of hating death. He emerged without delight; he went back in without a fuss. He came briskly, he went briskly, and that was all. He didn’t forget where he began; he didn’t try to find out where he would end. He received something and took pleasure in it; he forgot about it and handed it back again. This is what I call not using the mind to repel the Dao 損道, not using man to help out Heaven. This is what I call the True Person.

ZZ 6

The Dao has its reality and its signs but is without action or form.

– Therefore what has a form and acts is Not Dao?

ZZ 10

As long as men in high places covet knowledge and are without the Dao 無道, the world will be in great confusion.

ZZ 12

Without the Dao 非道 the body can have no life, and without Virtue, life can have no clarity. To preserve the body and live out life, to establish Virtue and make clear the Dao - is this not kingly Virtue?

ZZ 12

When the world has the Dao, he joins in the chorus with all other things. When the world is without the Dao 無道, he nurses his Virtue and retires in leisure.

ZZ 14

It is the Dao alone that never varies.

– Therefore, what varies is Not Dao?

ZZ 14

Lao Zi: “If the Dao could be presented, there is no man who would not present it to his ruler. If the Dao could be offered, there is no man who would not offer it to his parents. If the Dao could be reported, there is no man who would not report it to his brothers. If the Dao could be bequeathed, there is no man who would not bequeath it to his heirs. But it cannot - and for none other than the following reason. If there is no host on the inside to receive it, it will not stay; if there is no mark on the outside to guide it, it will not go. If what is brought forth from the inside is not received on the outside, then the sage will not bring it forth. If what is taken in from the outside is not received by a host on the inside, the sage will not entrust it.”

ZZ 14

Lao Zi: “… Get hold of the Dao and there’s nothing that can’t be done; lose it and there’s nothing that can be done.”

ZZ 16

From this we may see that the world has lost the Dao, and the Dao has lost the world; the world and the Dao have lost each other.

ZZ 17

From the point of view of the Dao, what is noble or what is mean? These are merely what are called endless changes. Do not hobble your will, or you will be departing far from the Dao!

ZZ 21

If men do not have the Way (無道), he has only to put on a straight face and they are enlightened.

ZZ 22

Look for it but it has no form, listen but it has no voice. Those who discourse upon it with other men speak of it as dark and mysterious. The Dao that is discoursed upon is not the Dao at all!

ZZ 31

The stranger then laughed and turned to go, saying as he walked away, “As far as benevolence goes, he is benevolent all right. But I’m afraid he will not escape unharmed. To weary the mind and wear out the body, putting the Truth in peril like this - alas, I’m afraid he is separated from the Great Dao by a vast distance indeed!”

ZZ 31

The Dao is the path by which the ten thousand things proceed. All things that lose it, die; all that get it, live. To go against it 逆 in one’s undertakings is to fail; to comply with it is to succeed.

ZZ 32

To dispense favors to men without ever forgetting that you are doing so - this is not Heaven’s Dao of giving.

HNZ (Huainanzi) 6

The Dao of Heaven is devoid of partiality in choosing and devoid of partiality in rejecting. Those who are capable have more than enough whilst the inept fall short of enough. Followers of Dao flourish whilst rebels [against it] come to grief.

– Thus what is partial is Not Dao?

HNZ 6

To fail to obtain Dao is like watching minnows. The Sage therefore is like a mirror, neither sending [things] away nor welcoming [things], responding but not storing. Thus, he undergoes Ten Thousand Changes without the slightest injury. He who [stops to think he] has obtained it (Dao) has just lost it; but he who [thinks he] has lost it, has he not just obtained it?

Guanzi: Nei Ye

Now the Dao is what fills the mind’s gestalt, but men cannot hold it in place.
Going, it may not return; coming, it may not stay.
…
That which is the Dao,
The mouth cannot express, the eye cannot see, and the ear cannot hear.
It is the means to cultivate the mind and rectify its gestalt.
Losing it, men die; having it, they live.
Losing it, undertakings fail; having it, they succeed.
…
That the Dao will naturally come
Is something you can count on and plan for.
If you are quiescent, you will obtain it.
If you move hastily, you will lose it.

Liezi 4

物自違道，道不違物。
“Things make themselves go counter to the Way, the Way does not go counter to things.” (Graham p. 91)

And here’s one more, from the Wenzi, chapter 5:

夫失道者，奢泰驕佚，慢倨矜傲，見餘自顯自明，執雄堅強，作難結怨，為兵主，為亂首

which Thomas Cleary translates as:

“Examples of losing the Way are extravagance, indulgence, complacency, pride, attention to the extraneous, self-display, self-glorification, competitiveness, forcefulness, making trouble, forming grudges, becoming commanders of armies, and becoming leaders of rebellions.” (p. 204)