Let's look first at the first half of the original text of chapter 37 of the Tao Te Ching (the question part is bold):
Virtue is not virtue.
The lower virtue does not lose virtue with no virtue.
Shangde did nothing and did nothing.
Xia De thought for it.
Shangren didn't think much of it.
The above righteousness is for it.
If the lord does not respond to it, he throws it with his arm.
<h1 class="pgc-h-arrow-right" data-track="46" > the lower virtue is "have" thought, but not as high as the "none" of "Shangren"</h1>
This passage is like a tongue twister, and if you want to memorize it, you must sort out the train of thought of Lao Tzu's words. However, under the analysis, I suddenly found a problem:
Why is it that "lower virtue" and "upper righteousness" are followed by "for the sake of thought"? According to the Tao → virtue→ benevolence→ righteousness→ the gradual decline in character, even the "lower virtue" should be higher than the "upper benevolence", but why "the lower virtue has a thought", but it is lower than the "shangren does not think" level, lower than the "shangyi" level?
The Daodejing is an annotated version of the Western Han Dynasty Heshang Gong, and Wei Wangbi followed the Heshang Ben, and the content of the scriptures is the same.
Looking at other versions, only Han Feizi did not have the annotations of "Xiade", and the commentators who could be found, such as: Yan Zun, Tang Xuanzong, Wang Anshi, Song Huizong, Wang Fuzhi, Wei Yuan, etc., are all like this, Fu Yiben of the Tang Dynasty belongs to a different category, he uses 9 famous annotations as references to organize, his annotations "Xiade" and "Shangren" are "for nothing", for the same grade.
In the above version, except for Han Feizi, the rest of the people are all after the Western Han Dynasty Heshang Gong, and the text is the same, that is, they are all derived from the Gongben of the River, that is, the Wang Bi ben "Tao Te Ching" that was used after the Wei and Jin Dynasties.
But such a text obviously has a hard wound: "The lower virtue is for it and has thought" and "the upper virtue is for it and has no thought", the "lower virtue" in the front rank is "there is a thought", and the "upper ren" in the last place is "no thought", giving people the feeling that the lower virtue is not as good as the upper one, which is an obvious text hard wound, just like the major general, how can it be lower than the colonel level, and it is lower than the middle colonel level?
Can this be in line with the order of shangde, lower morality, shangren, shangyi, and shangli?
Compared with the excavated documents, Chu Jian's "Lao Tzu" does not have a chapter on "Shangde Bude"; the Han Jian "Lao Tzu" collected by Peking University is the same as the heirloom. Only the Mawangdui book "Lao Tzu" is "the lower virtue does nothing and thinks" (jia ben does not, refer to a supplement).
<h1 class="pgc-h-arrow-right" data-track="57" what do > "thoughtless" and "thought"? </h1>
To sum up, in the various versions of Lao Tzu that can be found, they are all "the lower virtue has thoughts for it", and only the book is "the lower virtue has no action and has the idea", and "no action" is the basic characteristic of "virtue".
Most of the experts who sorted out the shushu at that time were experts in the study of Lao Zhuang's philosophy, but the opinions on the proofreading of the damaged and mutilated parts of the shushu were not uniform, and in the personal proofreading, many versions still referred to the hereditary "Tao Te Ching" to fill in the gaps.
Some researchers of the Tao Te Ching, according to their own understanding, refer to the book, and correct themselves, such as Chen Guying, Ren Jiyu and other old gentlemen, all have their own independent versions.
Others are abandoning the Shu Yi Ben and directly following the Shu Jia Ben and deleting the phrase "Xia De Wei", such as Mr. Xiao Gang's text.
According to Mr. Chen Guying and others, it is to trace the original meaning of Lao Tzu's thought, and in accordance with the requirements of "virtue is higher than benevolence", the "lower virtue has done and has thought" has been changed to "the lower virtue has done nothing and has thought". Such proofreading is, on the whole, more in line with the meaning of scripture. Because since it is "virtue", whether it is upper virtue or lower morality, it should be close to the path, and it should also be "doing nothing", not "doing something".
As early as the Qing Dynasty before the excavation of the book, there were well-known scholars such as Yao Nai who questioned the texts passed down from generation to generation, believing that it should be "the lower virtue has no action and has thoughts", and that "the lower virtue has no action and has thoughts" is the key sentence, which is the first link of Lao Tzu's discussion on social decline.
Lao Tzu did not criticize Virtue or criticize ren yi li, but used the "dichotomy" of virtue to explain the reasons for the decline of deism: Shangde will not decline, and it is Xia de that leads to the decline to Ren Yi Li.
So, what is inconsistency?
Mr. Feng Youlan, who was once known as the first philosopher of China, and Mr. Chen Guying, a famous Taoist cultural scholar at National Taiwan University, believe that "no one thinks" means "no one is artificial", and "there is thinking" is "someone is artificial".
Mr. Feng Youlan
Zhuangzi has the saying that "nothing to do with the world", in fact, is the syntactic transformation of "nothing to do with the world", that is, "not to have merit in the world", the vernacular is "do not think that there is merit", nothing to think, that is, there is nothing to rely on, do not think that there is merit, do not ask for returns. All those who have hopes and "ideas" are "thoughts", and they think that they have done something for others, and they never forget in their hearts.
The Han Classics: To, by virtue; Do nothing, don't rely on nothing.
The upper virtue is: neither doing anything, and there is no dependence, the lower virtue is: although there is no action, but there is a desire in the heart, that is, the desire for public virtue, hoping to get a response and return.
The body of virtue is inaction, and the use of virtue is inaction. The division that causes virtue lies in the use of virtue, and the giver does not need to be grateful to the recipient, nor does he not have the idea of merit, but as a recipient, he must be grateful.
The virtuous person is natural, following the law of inaction and non-action, doing virtue and giving grace is his way of life, there is no idea of doing virtue and giving grace, it is only natural, there is no desire to ask for the gratitude of the recipient.