This document can be acquired from a sub-directory coombspapers via anonymous
FTP and COOMBSQUEST gopher on the node COOMBS.ANU.EDU.AU The document's 
ftp filename and the full directory path are given in the coombspapers top 
level INDEX file.
date of the document's last update/modification 03/09/93

This file is the work of Stan Rosenthal. It has been placed here, with his 
kind permission, by Bill Fear. The author has asked that no hard copies, 
ie. paper copies, are made.

Stan Rosenthal may be contacted at 44 High street, St. Davids, Pembrokeshire, 
Dyfed, Wales, UK.
Bill Fear may be contacted at 29 Blackweir Terrace, Cathays, Cardiff, South 
Glamorgan, Wales, UK. email fear@thor.cf.ac.uk.
Please use email as first method of contact, if possible. Messages can be 
sent to Stan Rosenthal via the above email address - they will be forwarded 
on in person by myself.

.......................................Beginning of file...............................................
............................................2 of 5..........................................................

INTRODUCTION: THE TAO TE CHING, LAO TZU, TAOISM AND ZEN

There is frequently some confusion between three practices, each of which 
is generically termed 'Taoism'.  Since this confusion exists, it is important 
that the prospective student of Taoism can distinguish between them.  The 
three activities, or practices of Taoism are Philosohical or speculative 
Taoism, Religious or esoteric Taoism, and Alchemical or 'debased' Taoism.

The earliest of these is Philosophical Taoism (Tao-chia), which is believed 
to have developed between the sixth to the second century before the Christian 
era, from the earlier 'Yin-Yang' school of philosophy, whose teachings it 
inherited and integrated into its own 'philosophical system' through the 
'I Ching', now (unfortunately) most widely known as a work of 'divination'.

Philosophical Taoism is generally thought to have been based on the 'Tao 
Te Ching' of the possibly legendary Lao Tzu, and the work of his follower, 
Chuang Tzu, which is known through the book which bears his name, and is 
otherwise without title.

The major development and establishment of Religious Taoism (Tao- chiao) 
took place during the two Han dynasties (from 206 B.C. to 220 A.D.), and 
considered the Tao Te Ching as divine teaching, using specific interpretations 
of Lao Tzu's work as one of its own primary scriptures.  The Religious Taoists 
deified Lao Tzu, describing him as the 'T'ai Shang Lao-chun'.  In later 
centuries, Religious Taoism was to become a very powerful movement throughout 
China, where it was widely practiced, at least until the middle of the twentieth 
century.

The earliest known reference to Alchemy (in Eastern and Western Literature) 
is in the 'Shi-chi', written about eighty-five B.C., but the 'Chou'-i ts'an 
t'ung ch'i' of Wei Po-yang (c.200 A.D.) was probably the first major alchemical 
text to use a Taoist work to this end, some auhorities believeing the treatise 
to be a derivation of the I Ching.  This form of alchemy was referred to 
by the Philosophical Taoists as 'debased Taoism'.

Of these three 'forms' of Taoism (or practices which called themselves Taoist), 
Religious and Alchemical Taoism are not mentioned in the text of this work, 
other than where they, and similar practices, were referred to, usually 
indirectly, in the Chinese text (and then usually in a derisory manner).

Readers of both the I Ching and the Tao Te Ching will readily apppreciate 
from many of Lao Tzu's statements, that he was certainly well versed in 
the concepts explained in the earlier work, and accepted its major precept, 
that all things are always in a state (or process) of change ('I Ching' 
means 'Book of Changes').  However, even allowing for the age of the I Ching, 
and the certainty that its concepts were well known in China at the time 
of Lao Tzu, it would seem, from historical records, that the Tao Te Ching 
was considered to be a perplexing book, even in the period in which it was 
written.  Although not mentioning either Lao Tzu or the Tao Te Ching (nor 
the I Ching) by name, many of Chuang Tzu's stories (which are probably
apocryphal) serve to illustrate and explain points from the Tao Te Ching.
If there were no confusion or doubt, presumably such explanatory material
would not have been required.

In its original form, the Tao Te Ching (as it is now known) is believed 
to have consisted of eighty-one short chapters, these being arranged in 
two sections, known as the 'Tao Ching' and the 'Te Ching'.  The first of 
these was comprised of thirty-seven chapters, and the second of forty-four 
chapters.  The length of the original work is said to have been approximately 
five- thousand characters, and it is probable that these were written on 
bamboo strips or slats, which would then have been bound together to form 
two scrolls, each appearing somewhat like a venitian blind with vertical 
slats.  These were a common form of 'record' in the period of Lao Tzu, this 
being known as 'The Period of the Warring States'.

Since it is not known with absolute certainty that a person named 'Lao Tzu' 
actually lived during the period of the warring states, to catagorically 
describe the Tao Te Ching as the work of Lao Tzu would be without sufficiently 
valid historical foundation.  Even the 'biography of Lao Tzu' which may 
be found in the 'Historical Records' (Shih-chi) of Ssu-ma Ch'ien (second 
century B.C.) is not without its inconsistencies. This record describes 
Lao Tzu as having been an archivist of the Court of Chou, and further states 
that he is said to have personally instructed Kung Fu Tzu (Confucius).

It is in this last statement that one inconsistency may be found, for other 
chronicles state the date of the death of Lao Tzu to precede that of the 
birth of Kung Fu Tzu by nearly half a century.  Even the author of the
'Historical Records' states his doubts as to the authenticity of the
information available regarding Lao Tzu, and some scholars maintain that the
Tao Te Ching does not present a distinctive or single point of view.  They
argue that it is probably a compilation or anthology of sayings from various
writers and schools of thought, reaching its present form in the third century
B.C.

Conversly, according to legend, it is said that on his retirement from public 
office, Lao Tzu headed west, and that the guardian of the pass to the state 
of Ch'in requested that he write a treatise on the Tao before departing.  
It is then that Lao Tzu is supposed to have sat for two days, in which time 
he wrote the Tao Te Ching, after which he left, some writers stating that 
he was never heard of again, others describing his ascent to heaven in the 
form of a magnificent dragon.

Whichever story we believe concerning the existence of Lao Tzu, we may
reasonably conclude (at least) that there is much contradictory evidence.
Although I cannot offer conclusive proof that he did exist, I do not believe
that the contradictions prove that such a person did not exist, and neither do
I believe they prove the Tao Te Ching to have been written by more than 
one person.  As I have stated, the reasons for my beliefs are admittedly 
without sufficient 'hard evidence' to withstand strong philosophical questioning, 
but they are offered here for those who might wish to know of an argument 
contrary to current academic opinion.

Since one meaning of the words	'Lao Tzu' is 'Old Man', it is very unlikely 
that they were used as an ordinary (or 'proper') name, but could well have 
been a 'nickname'.  Some authorities claim that this was so in the case 
of the person in question, the nickname possibly being derived from the 
fact (?) that he was born with white hair, like that of an old man.  This 
theory seems to borne out by the fact that the second character, can also 
be used to mean 'child'.  However, in the context of teaching and learning, 
it also means 'master' or 'scholar' (compared with 'pupil' or 'student').  
Furthermore, and for the purpose of this discussion, more importantly, the 
same two characters which form the Chinese 'Lao Tzu' form the words 'old 
scholar', pronounced as 'roshi' in Japanese, a title usually reserved in 
that language for a master of Zen teaching.

This means that 'Lao Tzu' is the Chinese equivalent to the Japanese 'Roshi'.  
For this reason I believe there probably was a person called Lao Tzu, but 
that Lao Tzu was his title, rather than his name.  It may of course be that 
there were many 'old scholars', all known by that title, but the existence 
of many has never been considered proof of the non-existence of one.

At this juncture it is perhaps necessary to mention briefly the historical 
and philosophical relationship between Taoism, Ch'an and Zen.  The word 
'Zen' is the Japanese pronunciation of the Chinese 'Ch'an', the system
attributed to the 'Bodhidharma' (in Japanese 'Daruma'), described by followers
of Zen Buddhism as the twenty-eighth Buddhist Patriarch, who is said to have
arrived in China in 526 A.D.  Although well known to followers of Zen, it is
not always known to others that the Bodhidharma then spent nine years in the
earliest Chinese Buddhist temple, which had by that time been in existence 
for over four hundred years.  Furthermore, during that period, the original 
Buddhism of India had undergone many changes in China, much of its teaching 
having been adapted (Tibetan Buddhists might claim, 'adulterated') by its 
proximity to Taoism.

Today, in the West at least, the most widely known sects of Zen are Buddhist.  
However, even before its acceptance by Buddhists, Ch'an (or 'Zen') was accepted 
by the Chinese followers of Philosophical Taoism (Tao Chia) as an adjunct 
to their own philosophy and practices.  So it was that the 'non-religious' 
aspects of Zen and Taoism became integrated into the system known in China 
as 'Ch'an Tao-chia'.

It is probable that we will never know all the reasons for this two-way 
integration which occurred between Tao-chia and Ch'an, but some of the reasons 
become apparent when we learn something of the similarities between the 
philosophies underlying the two systems.  It will hopefully suffice to mention 
that the practitioners of each group probably felt an affinity with the 
'fluidity' of thought and action of the practitioners of the other, recognizing 
this as stemming from the same philosophical source as their own.  Similarly, 
it is very likely that the members of both groups appreciated the 'ethics' 
of the other, since both philosophies emphasize the development of the
individual as a prerequisite to the development of society.

Notwithstanding any inaccuracies in my own interpretation of events, of 
even greater historical significance is the fact that from about six hundred 
A.D., the survival of Philosophical Taoism was made possible only through 
its adoption by Ch'an.  Had it not been for this fact, the antagonistic 
attitude of the Religious Taoists, combined with their growing governmental 
power, might easily have resulted in the forceful demise of Taoist Philosophy 
as it is known today.

As to the continued integration and co-existence of Taoism and Zen, we
fortunately need look no further than the words of the great Zen scholar,
Professor D.T. Suzuki, who said,
	"To ask a question about Zen is to ask a question
	about the Tao."

All this is of course intended to illustrate the links between the two
practices which use the same written characters ( ) as a teaching name or
honorary title, and that this title may have been used by the author of the Tao
Te Ching wishing to retain his anonymity.

If this was the case, it could have been either for reasons of personal 
safety on the part of the author, or out of deference to his own teachers.  
Any reader who has knowledge of the history of China during the peiod of 
the warring states will readily appreciate, and hopefully sympathise with 
the first of these reasons, but the second reason perhaps requires some 
explanation.  This is now offered.

Carrying out one's work in an unostentatious manner is an important aspect 
of Taoist teaching, as is respect for one's teachers.  In some instances 
these two principles were adhered to so rigorously that a writer or painter 
might either not sign his work at all, or use a pseudonym compiled (possibly 
as an anagram) from the names of his most revered teachers.  It is therefore 
possible that the author of the Tao Te Ching used the pseudonym 'Lao Tzu' 
as an acknowledgement of his own teacher, using the title 'old scholar' 
to refer to that teacher as he might have been known and referred to by 
his own students.

It is quite likely that the title 'Roshi', used in Zen (Japanese Ch'an) 
developed as an 'official title' from its earlier Chinese usage.  In Zen, 
it is thought to be rank bad manners to use the real name of one's own teacher 
in a published work, at least in the context of he or she being one's own 
teacher (for reasons which I have attempted to explain in the 'Acknowledgements' 
section), but it is quite acceptable to refer to him (or her) by an honorary 
title.  Combine any of these possibilties with the fact that one's own teacher 
may have been given or have chosen a 'teaching name' (a pseudonym under 
which a teacher may work) and it becomes easier to understand why it is 
impossible to be definitive regarding the 'real name' of the author or authors 
of the Tao Te Ching.  For the purposes of this discussion however, I wish 
to continue from the assumption that the Tao Te Ching did have an author, 
and that we may, without too much 'licence', refer to him as Lao Tzu.

The second factor which causes me to believe that we should not completely 
disregard the legend of the writing of the Tao Te Ching concerns its cryptic 
style.  The basis of my belief is twofold.  In the first instance, if, as 
legend tells us, Lao Tzu completed his writing in two days, it is not surprising 
that it was cryptic, since this would have required him to write at a rate 
of two and one half thousand words each day.  It may therefore be that he 
wrote as succinctly as possible in order to complete his task as quickly 
as possible, so that he could continue on his journey into retirement.

Those who know the Tao Te Ching will also know that Lao Tzu did not teach 
that a task should be rushed; rather, he taught that all things should occur 
in their natural time.  This leads to my second point regarding the cryptic 
style of the original work.

We know that the keeper of the pass, who made the request for a written 
copy of Lao Tzu's thoughts, was a well known Taoist of the period named 
Yin Hsi, also referred to as 'Kwan Yin'. As a Taoist, he would certainly 
have been familiar with the teachings of Lao Tzu, even though, as he himself 
is supposed to have told the old philosopher, because of the nature of his 
work, he had not been able to avail himself of personal tuition from the 
master.  It could be that the 'vagueness' (or seemingly esoteric nature 
of the first chapter) is due to the fact that Lao Tzu would have had no 
reason to explain the Tao to someone who was already versed in Tao-chia.

I believe we can assume that, although possibly not nationally famous, Lao 
Tzu would certainly have been well known in his own province.  This would 
certainly seem to be the case, since Yin Hsi either recognised the figure 
of Lao Tzu, or his name, otherwise he would not have made his request to 
that particular traveller.

Assuming the keeper of the pass to know something of the teaching of Lao 
Tzu, his request could have been made in the form of a list of questions, 
to which Lao Tzu might have written the answers in the form of brief (or 
cryptic) notes, as an 'aide memoire'.  This might of course also account 
for the apparent discontinuity of the completed work.  If the text were 
written in answer to a number of questions, the sequence of the text would 
conform to that of the questions, which might easily have been prepared 
by Yin Hsi over a period of time, in the hope that the occasion might arise 
when he would meet with a scholar such as Lao Tzu, with whom he could then 
discuss his questions.  This could account for the apparent repetitions 
in the text, for two questions both phrased in a similar manner, would
presumably be answered in a similar manner.

This concludes the summary of my own beliefs regarding the legend of Lao 
Tzu and the Tao Te Ching, other than to add the rider used frequently even 
by those who disagree totally with my own interpretation of the legend.  
This is that, irrespective of the authenticity of the legend and the problem 
of identifying its authorship, the majority of scholars date the origin 
of the text of the Tao Te Ching no later than 400 B.C.  Furthermore, there 
is virtually no dissent among scholars as to its great value as a philosophical, 
literary and historical work.


NOTES ON THE INTERPRETATION

The text of the Tao Te Ching follows immediately after these notes, the 
arrangement following the convention set by Wan Bih in the third century 
A.D.  Each of the eighty-one sections is shown in English, the text being 
as brief as English grammar will permit, whilst still retaining sensibility.  
The differences between my own rendering of the text and those of other 
translators will seem to some readers to be minor; to others they may seem 
radical.  In either case, the reader is of course free to compare the texts 
by referring to those editions cited earlier in these notes.

The Chinese characters employed as chapter headings are written in a style 
approximating to the period in which the original text was written.  The 
style is commonly known as 'small seal script'. Readers wishing to use modern 
Chinese characters for their own researches may of course refer to any or 
each of the Chinese texts mentioned earlier, and there are of course many 
others.

'Small seal script' is by no means the earliest written form of Chinese, 
but it is certainly one of the most aesthetically pleasing and easiest to 
read.  Being more pictographic than later forms, the symbolism of the images 
contained within the small seal characters is easier to understand than 
it is in later forms.  Modern Chinese script is virtually always more stylized, 
and (if hand written) frequently more 'freehand', and therefore sometimes 
difficult for the inexperienced reader to decipher.

Each small seal script chapter heading provides an approximate rendering 
of either the English title beneath or beside which it appears, or of the 
key concept or concepts embodied in the text of that chapter.  As with the 
Chinese text itself, there are a number of different 'authentic' chapter 
headings.  In most instances I have used a 'traditional' heading, but where 
even the traditional meaning is unclear I have used the heading I believe 
to be most appropriate to the contents of the chapter.  Following the usual 
conventions, horizontally presented script should be read from left to right, 
and vertically presented script should be read from top to bottom, the right 
hand column first.

As I have stated earlier, because of the cryptic nature of the original 
text, and also because of the difference between the structure of English 
and Chinese grammar, a completely literal translation of the Chinese text 
would make little if any sense to the reader not versed in both the written 
Chinese language and the concepts of Taoism.  This means that virtually 
any intelligible English rendering of the Tao Te Ching is bound to be longer 
than the original Chinese text.  The variation in the length of many English 
(and Chinese) texts of the Tao Te Ching will be readily apparent to the 
reader of those translations listed in the reference section.

There are many valid arguments for and against the inclusion of commentaries 
on the text in any edition of the Tao Te Ching, but in this instance I hope 
that the English rendering will 'speak for itself', thus serving the purpose 
for which it is intended.  It is for this reason that no separate commentaries 
are included.
The text in this edition is somewhat longer than that found in most other 
translations. There are two reasons for this, the first being that it includes 
certain expansions resulting from points raised in discussion by my own 
students.  In those instances where there was apparent lack of clarity in 
my original drafts, additions have been made to clarify the concepts involved.  
(Where additions have been made to the most commonly available Chinese and 
English editions, the addition and the reason for its inclusion are annotated 
in the appendix at the end of the book.) The second reason is the form of 
interpretation employed, the rationale of which is now briefly described.

I do not believe it is by accident that the Tao Te Ching can be interpreted 
at many different levels without contradiction.  The actual interpretation 
placed upon the text by any translator will depend on many factors, as has 
already been discussed.  However, there is no doubt that Tao-chia and Ch'an 
are both very much concerned with individual development, maintaining that 
this is essential to a healthy society.

It is from this particular viewpoint that the rationale for this interpretation 
has developed.  Although other translators have certainly raised this issue, 
to the best of my knowledge this is the first rendering to give priority 
to this aspect of the Tao Te Ching.  It was because my own students requested 
such an interpretation in English, and because we were unable to find such 
an interpretation that I undertook the translation and interpretation presented 
here.


        Stanley Rosenthal
        (Shi-tien Roshi)

        British School of Zen Taoism
        Cardiff, September 1984

...............................End of file.....................................
..................................2 of 5.......................................