This seems like a pretty straight-forward verse. Sensual pleasures (sounds, tastes, and sights), greed, and excitement damage our perception organs and mind. I think this means they distract us from our perception of the Tao, which requires quiet contemplation. I guess they are the result of or a reflection of desire. — T Clark

I see this verse a little differently. I think it has more to do with the fact that when we seek to overwhelm the senses or indulge in excess, we’re unable to appreciate the diverse qualities of the world.

To enjoy colour, we need to be able to distinguish the different light frequencies. All of them at once creates a bright white light - with a colourless, blinding quality.

To enjoy sounds, we need to be able to distinguish the different tones and frequencies. All of them at once make noise - with a deafening quality.

To enjoy flavours, we need to be able to distinguish different smells and tastes. Strong neutral flavouring cleanses the palate of any lingering tastes, enabling us to then enjoy the delicate flavours in fine wine or food.

A continually fast pace, or a busy life full of high stress is maddening, frantic, crazy.

When something is exceedingly rare and treasured, it can drive a person towards harmful, negative behaviour.

Therefore, the sage seeks only what he needs, not what he sees (acts in the capacity of his belly, not his eye). So he foregoes that in order to choose this.

I remember as a child being scolded by my mother (who grew up in Singapore) when I dished up a quantity of food I couldn’t finish: “your eyes were too big for your belly”.

All of this refers back to the relation between substance and lack: if we concentrate only on filling our world to the brim, then it leaves no room to appreciate wu in relation to the Tao.

:ok:

They also classify flavors into five categories which generally match those we use. Maybe the use of these words references division of the natural world into rigid conventional categories. "The five colors blind a person's eyes" might mean that thinking in terms of those categories keeps us from seeing the world directly. I haven’t seen this interpretation anywhere else. — T Clark

I think this is right.
Your interpretation is in keeping with that of Ivanhoe's notes concerning V12.

First, his translation:

The five colours blind our eyes.
The five notes deafen our ears.
The five flavours deaden our palates.
The chase and hunt madden our hearts.
Precious goods impede our activities.
This is why sages are for the belly and not for the eye;
And so they cast off the one and take up the other.

His notes:
These sets of five refer to the conventional standards of evaluation in regard to the different sensory faculties. The passage is not a rejection of the pleasures of the senses nor does it express skepticism regarding the senses per se. Rather, like the view one finds in Zhuangzi, Chapter 2 ( see pp. 209-19), it expresses a profound distrust of conventional categories and values and advocates moderation of sensual pleasures.
------

The eyes should not look frantically. Regarding frantically leaks out vital essence. — T Clark

This ties in with ' the chase and hunt maddens our hearts'.

It makes sense to me as someone who can become overwhelmed with all that is out there and wanting to find out more...
When I should be settling down to the book; simply reading and enjoying the poetry and words conveying wisdom. To digest and then discuss.

I think @Possibility with her own interpretation is practising and explaining this perfectly :sparkle:

Therefore, the sage seeks only what he needs, not what he sees (acts in the capacity of his belly, not his eye). So he foregoes that in order to choose this.

I remember as a child being scolded by my mother (who grew up in Singapore) when I dished up a quantity of food I couldn’t finish: “your eyes were too big for your belly”.

All of this refers back to the relation between substance and lack: if we concentrate only on filling our world to the brim, then it leaves no room to appreciate wu in relation to the Tao. — Possibility

Another :up:

It does make a big difference. I do think there are separate experiences being considered here.
I will mull in the idea while considering the other translations. — Valentinus

Your way of seeing things has been helpful for me. Not that others aren't.

I see this verse a little differently. I think it has more to do with the fact that when we seek to overwhelm the senses or indulge in excess, we’re unable to appreciate the diverse qualities of the world. — Possibility

I guess the difference between my way of seeing it and yours is the distinction between my "perceive the Tao" and your "appreciate the diverse qualities of the world." I guess I would interpret "diverse qualities" as referring to the 10,000 things. That carries through to the other senses described.

Therefore, the sage seeks only what he needs, not what he sees (acts in the capacity of his belly, not his eye). — Possibility

The distinction between belly and eyes you describe is echoed by some other commentators. Others see things differently. Here's Chen, who includes your interpretation among others:

This is a persistent primitivistic theme in the text—that humans should be contented with the simple pleasures of life (ch. 80) and that the overstimulation of the senses renders them incapable of functioning smoothly...

...According to Wang Pi the issue is between preservation or dissipation of the self. The sage makes things serve him; he does not enslave himself to things. Food, which is for the belly, serves to sustain the body, but the eyes lead us to outside distractions and dissipate the body’s energies.

...We suggest that the symbols of the belly and the eyes go deeper. The belly, representing instinct, the unconscious, and the unopened self, is the seat of life and unity (Gebser: 145). The eyes, opening us to the external world, represent consciousness, sight being the most refined and intellectual of the senses.

“your eyes were too big for your belly” — Possibility

My father always said "Your eyes are bigger than your stomach."

All of this refers back to the relation between substance and lack: if we concentrate only on filling our world to the brim, then it leaves no room to appreciate wu in relation to the Tao. — Possibility

Where you read substance and lack I see being and non-being; 10,000 things and Tao. I think we're talking about different things, but I'm not sure.

I think this is right.
Your interpretation is in keeping with that of Ivanhoe's notes concerning V12. — Amity

After I read your response, I went and looked some more. I still haven't found anyone else who uses this interpretation. I'm still not sure I believe that's what it meant, although it seems like a deeper meaning than the other ones we're talking about. I went and bought his book. I'm glad you found it. Thanks.

I went and bought his book. I'm glad you found it. Thanks. — T Clark

I'm glad you found it useful. It might not always be to your liking though.

Ivanhoe was recommended to me by a friend who read the translation as part of an anthology:  "Readings in Classical Chinese Philosophy".
I found and downloaded the excerpt ( Chapter 4 ) from: https://terebess.hu/english/tao/_index.html

I think the book might be better, perhaps with more information.
Look forward to hearing more...

I am being helped by all the contributions given by all the contributors and am glad there is a discussion with enough center of gravity to allow the ideas to survive different points of view.

Most of the discussions I have had along these lines in meat space have been conditioned by impatience of one kind or another.

I see this verse a little differently. I think it has more to do with the fact that when we seek to overwhelm the senses or indulge in excess, we’re unable to appreciate the diverse qualities of the world.
— Possibility

I guess the difference between my way of seeing it and yours is the distinction between my "perceive the Tao" and your "appreciate the diverse qualities of the world." I guess I would interpret "diverse qualities" as referring to the 10,000 things. That carries through to the other senses described. — T Clark

I did say qualities, but I think it makes more sense to say quality. The Tao, for me, IS the diverse quality of the world as a relational whole, inclusive of wu. I’m referring to both the existence and non-existence of quality here. The 10,000 things is not inclusive of wu. It’s a process of consolidation, which necessarily excludes the qualitative aspect of the Tao that pertains to it as a relational whole, as something that possibly exists in itself.

The distinction between belly and eyes you describe is echoed by some other commentators. Others see things differently. Here's Chen, who includes your interpretation among others:

This is a persistent primitivistic theme in the text—that humans should be contented with the simple pleasures of life (ch. 80) and that the overstimulation of the senses renders them incapable of functioning smoothly...

...According to Wang Pi the issue is between preservation or dissipation of the self. The sage makes things serve him; he does not enslave himself to things. Food, which is for the belly, serves to sustain the body, but the eyes lead us to outside distractions and dissipate the body’s energies.

...We suggest that the symbols of the belly and the eyes go deeper. The belly, representing instinct, the unconscious, and the unopened self, is the seat of life and unity (Gebser: 145). The eyes, opening us to the external world, represent consciousness, sight being the most refined and intellectual of the senses. — T Clark

Chen and Wang Pi seem to relate to the text as an ethical position, as if it’s telling the reader how they should behave, what is good and what is bad. This is common practice in relation to ancient metaphysical texts, but I think it’s a mistake to assume that either the text or its author has that kind of authority over us (and I think Lao Tzu makes a disclaimer to this effect in the second verse).

FWIW, I disagree with the isolated message ‘that humans should be content with the simple pleasures of life’ - I think this is a misunderstanding. Having said that, I do think that contentment with simple pleasures has merit in relation to certain situations, but it cannot stand alone as an instruction for a ‘good’ life.

I also disagree that “the sage makes things serve him”. It isn’t about slave or enslave, and preservation of the self is not the goal here - but I think we may see this more clearly in verse 13. Seeing a ‘thing’ we don’t have but could have, we have a tendency to want it, regardless of whether or not we need it. The sage understands the difference, and isn’t concerned with ‘things’ in relation to the ‘self’, but with his/her participation in the flow of energy. Recognising a qualitative lack (what the eyes or other senses tell us about our relation to the world) is not the same as recognising need (what the belly or other interoception tells us about our internal energy requirements). When we look at an ocean view of blues and greens, we don’t concern ourselves with ‘fixing’ the lack of redness. And when we listen to a symphony, we don’t complain that the cymbalist isn’t playing most of the time. The lack is an important part of the whole.

Where you read substance and lack I see being and non-being; 10,000 things and Tao. I think we're talking about different things, but I'm not sure. — T Clark

I think perhaps we’re looking at the same relation in different ways. The terms ‘being’ and ‘non-being’ refer to a particular level of awareness, which is often associated with human consciousness. The terms ‘substance’ and ‘lack’ I used in relation to the previous verse because it referred to a different level of awareness - a tangible, observable relation to the world. But the idea is the same - this relates to your issue that verse 11 seems to change the meaning of ‘being’ and ‘non-being’.

(EDIT: Chinese characters aren’t words, they’re more like ideas. Each character embodies the most complex rendering of an idea, and its contextual application determines the relative complexity referred to in the text. So it isn’t surprising for me that the ‘meaning’ of the character changes in relation to its context. It’s supposed to.)

The difference between ‘the 10,000 things’ and ‘the Tao’ is the same idea again at a more complex level of awareness - but at some point we have to accept that it’s the relation we’re referring to, not two different ‘things’. ‘The 10,000 things’ refers to, but is not, the Tao. And ‘the Tao’ refers to, but is not, the Tao. They’re relative aspects of one absolute.

The meanings do seem to change in different verses. Maybe it has to do with us having to pursue different paths to approach what is the same. — Valentinus

I don't see it as a problem that meanings or use of a word changes in different verses depending on what subject is being addressed. Being and Non-Being can describe different states of affairs.

Potential meanings:

Being (yu) : having, existing, substance, (having a) name > the named.
Non- Being (wu): not having, not existing, emptiness, ( not having a) name > the nameless.

[ Edit: source: https://tao-in-you.com/to-have-not-to-have-in-tao-te-ching/ ]

In V1 - it's about the name or concept and the way it exists or operates outside of the boundaries of language, the unmanifest.

The nameless was the beginning of heaven and earth;
The named was the mother of the myriad creatures. — Valentinus

In V 11 - it's about the substance and lack.

Cut out doors and windows to make a house.
Through its non-being (wu),
There is (yu) the use (yung) of the house. — T Clark

Where you read substance and lack I see being and non-being; 10,000 things and Tao. I think we're talking about different things, but I'm not sure. — T Clark

From my understanding the Tao is the way or course or path of all things.
For this to be effective, or of benefit, we need to see the usefulness of wu, the empty aspect, as well as the yu, the substance.

When we assess the value or quality of anything e.g. the book, the TTC, we don't just look at the primary objective properties or qualities of it ( the cover, presentation ), we look at the secondary qualities, the subjective ( the reading, the meaning, the subjective interpretations).

:up: I am likewise helped.

Most of the discussions I have had along these lines in meat space have been conditioned by impatience of one kind or another. — Valentinus

Well, that happens here too, and worse.
I have learned not to fire off a response when tired and meet with some kind of difficulty.
It's good to take time out to breathe, back away and balance before replying.

Then again, I enjoy the spontaneity when in agreement with something that makes me smile.
When there is an easy flow...you know.

Both work well here :smile:

From my understanding the Tao is the way or course or path of all things.
For this to be effective, or of benefit, we need to see the usefulness of wu, the empty aspect, as well as the yu, the substance. — Amity

I look back and see the many definitions:

To get started - the Tao. Here are some definitions and quotations about the Tao from various sources, including me:

[1] The ground of being
[2] The Tao that cannot be spoken
[3] Oneness is the Tao which is invisible and formless.
[4] Nature is Tao. Tao is everlasting.
[5] The absolute principle underlying the universe
[6] That in virtue of which all things happen or exist
[7] The intuitive knowing of life that cannot be grasped full-heartedly as just a concept — T Clark

Within the Tao - the Way, there can be a particular tao or way of looking at or doing things.
As individuals, we might be on the same general path but we differ in what we see along it.
All perspectives count...for their potential value...
Does that sound about right ?

The Tao, for me, IS the diverse quality of the world as a relational whole, inclusive of wu. — Possibility

That's where I keep coming up against a wall. The Tao is completely not diverse. It is all one no-thing. The 10,000 things are diverse. You know, 10,000 and all.

Chen and Wang Pi seem to relate to the text as an ethical position, as if it’s telling the reader how they should behave, what is good and what is bad. This is common practice in relation to ancient metaphysical texts, but I think it’s a mistake to assume that either the text or its author has that kind of authority over us (and I think Lao Tzu makes a disclaimer to this effect in the second verse). — Possibility

The TTC clearly intends to provide guidance to rulers about how to lead their country. I don't really see that as an ethical issue, more of a how-to. I wonder if maybe that tone is an artifact of translation from ancient Chinese into English.

..I disagree with the isolated message ‘that humans should be content with the simple pleasures of life’ - I think this is a misunderstanding. Having said that, I do think that contentment with simple pleasures has merit in relation to certain situations, but it cannot stand alone as an instruction for a ‘good’ life. — Possibility

I don't think that is a misunderstanding by either you or Lao Tzu. I think you just disagree with him. Not that there's anything wrong with that. I'm trying to understand what Lao Tzu is saying. Once I've got that, I can decide whether it's something that works for me.

he terms ‘being’ and ‘non-being’ refer to a particular level of awareness, which is often associated with human consciousness. The terms ‘substance’ and ‘lack’ I used in relation to the previous verse because it referred to a different level of awareness - a tangible, observable relation to the world. — Possibility

I agree with the first sentence. I still don't get your usage of "substance" and "lack." It seems like it trivializes something profound. The most profound thing in a profound book.

The difference between ‘the 10,000 things’ and ‘the Tao’ is the same idea again at a more complex level of awareness - but at some point we have to accept that it’s the relation we’re referring to, not two different ‘things’. ‘The 10,000 things’ refers to, but is not, the Tao. And ‘the Tao’ refers to, but is not, the Tao. They’re relative aspects of one absolute. — Possibility

In agreement with this, here is text from Derek Lin's translation of Verse 1:

Thus, constantly free of desire
One observes its wonders
Constantly filled with desire
One observes its manifestations
These two emerge together but differ in name
The unity is said to be the mystery
Mystery of mysteries, the door to all wonders

I don't see it as a problem that meanings or use of a word changes in different verses depending on what subject is being addressed. Being and Non-Being can describe different states of affairs. — Amity

I got confused. I thought "What does this have to do with the five sounds?" Then I realized it comes from the previous verse.

There certainly is a lot of ambiguity in what Lao Tzu writes. "Being" and "non-being" are among the most important concepts in the TTC. The two possible different uses we are talking about are really different. There may come a time when I accept things are as you've said. I'm a pretty lazy person and I tend to move along if I can't figure things out right away. That being said, I've found that, if I give up digging too soon, I miss important things. I have a feeling that may be happening here.

When we assess the value or quality of anything e.g. the book, the TTC, we don't just look at the primary objective properties or qualities of it ( the cover, presentation ), we look at the secondary qualities, the subjective ( the reading, the meaning, the subjective interpretations). — Amity

As I said, if I give up digging too soon and just assume it's just one of those ancient inscrutable Chinesey things, I am likely to miss something important.

All perspectives count...for their potential value...
Does that sound about right ? — Amity

Yes, of course. But then, some interpretations are not just ambiguous, they're wrong. More likely - that I'm not understanding what Lao Tzu and/or the interpreter are trying to say. The TTC is ambiguous, but it's not loosey-goosey or new age. I'm sure that's not what you meant to say.

I prayed to God for a solution to the confusion. He sent me a sage in shining armour who spake thus:

Regarding the difference between the 10,000 things and the Tao:

In line with chapter 1:

The 10,000 things (being) can be named. The Tao that can be named is what gives rise to them. They are manifest in desire, that is, what we want, what we depend on.

The nameless Tao is the beginning of Heaven and earth. I think Heaven and earth are the names given to the wu in which beings are manifest, where they dwell. Perhaps desire must be eliminated because desire transforms them into what they are for us, makes the mystery into something that we can comprehend, thereby distorting it.

There are mysteries and manifestations - what cannot be named and what can be named - wu and beings - the nameless Tao and the named Tao

What sayest thou...anybody... ?
Note well: even the sage isn't sure... :smile:

She sends this reassurance:
If you are not getting yourself tied in knots you are missing something. It is after all, an enigma within a deeper enigma (chapter 1) :nerd:

I prayed to God for a solution to the confusion. He sent me a sage in shining armour who spake thus: — Amity

Whose commentary is this?

The nameless Tao is the beginning of Heaven and earth. — Amity

What the commentator has written is similar to the other translators and commentaries. What are your thoughts about it?

It just struck me we haven't talked about heaven and earth yet. I went back and checked. Maybe I'll do a post just on that. It's an important idea that I haven't got a good feel for.

Whose commentary is this? — T Clark

ThusSpakeSagaxa. But she likes 'Saige' better. I call her Saggy1.

What are your thoughts about it? — T Clark

Whatever the name, she is Heaven Scent and the message good :halo:

It just struck me we haven't talked about heaven and earth yet. I went back and checked. Maybe I'll do a post just on that. It's an important idea that I haven't got a good feel for. — T Clark

Saggy1 sends you best wishes and this Old Celtic Blessing:

'May the road rise up to meet you.
May the wind be always at your back.
May the sun shine warm upon your face,
the rains fall soft upon your fields
and until we meet again,
may God hold you in the palm of His hand.'

She adds:
May the knife you wield be a sharp one *
May it shine upon you
And not get blunt.

Amen :pray:

* Handle With Care

The Tao, for me, IS the diverse quality of the world as a relational whole, inclusive of wu.
— Possibility

That's where I keep coming up against a wall. The Tao is completely not diverse. It is all one no-thing. The 10,000 things are diverse. You know, 10,000 and all. — T Clark

I think I understand what you mean. But for me, it’s a difference between quantitative distinction (thingness) and qualitative diversity (variability). The Tao is one but not a thing - it is variability without thingness, whether one or 10,000.

The TTC clearly intends to provide guidance to rulers about how to lead their country. I don't really see that as an ethical issue, more of a how-to. I wonder if maybe that tone is an artifact of translation from ancient Chinese into English. — T Clark

I agree that it seems to come down to translation/interpretation. But I don’t think the intentions of the text are clear at all. I believe those seeking a how-to on running their country will find one, and those seeking an ethical structure will find one, too. I think that’s the beauty of the Chinese language: it’s like a system language for navigating the Tao with a limited understanding. And the TTC is like a self-diagnostic program that can be run on any integrated structure of relations to help refine its operation in relation to the Tao, regardless of the level of awareness, connection or collaboration.

It just struck me we haven't talked about heaven and earth yet. I went back and checked. Maybe I'll do a post just on that. It's an important idea that I haven't got a good feel for. — T Clark

I agree that the context of heaven and earth is important. I brought up Verse 5 earlier because the "cosmology" sharply differentiates the two realms the same Dao is said to bring about.
Seeing as how all of our experience happens on "this" side of the Heavenly Gate, it is remarkable that any of our observations could inform us of anything about the other side.

ThusSpakeSagaxa. — Amity

Is this a friend of yours? I couldn't find her on the web.

Whatever the name, she is Heaven Scent and the message good :halo: — Amity

So, you're saying she smells nice?

The Tao is one but not a thing — Possibility

Yes. The thing that is a thing is not the eternal Thing.

And the TTC is like a self-diagnostic program that can be run on any integrated structure of relations to help refine its operation in relation to the Tao, regardless of the level of awareness, connection or collaboration. — Possibility

I have no trouble with that description, as long as it doesn't mean that the TTC is all things to all people. I think Lao Tzu wrote it with specific things in mind. I've said this before - The Tao is not a thing, it is an experience. Lao Tzu is leading us to experience the Tao. Maybe the path will be different for different people.

I agree that the context of heaven and earth is important. — Valentinus

I'm working on the next verse now. When I'm done with that I'll do a post on heaven and earth so we can talk about it.

Verse 13

Stephen Mitchell

Success is as dangerous as failure.
Hope is as hollow as fear.

What does it mean that success is as dangerous as failure?
Whether you go up the ladder or down it,
you position is shaky.
When you stand with your two feet on the ground,
you will always keep your balance.

What does it mean that hope is as hollow as fear?
Hope and fear are both phantoms
that arise from thinking of the self.
When we don't see the self as self,
what do we have to fear?

See the world as your self.
Have faith in the way things are.
Love the world as your self;
then you can care for all things.

The more I read other translations of the TTC, the more I feel that Stephen Mitchell leaves too much out. On the other hand, I might not have ever read the TTC at all if it hadn’t been as accessible as his is. This verse has always been one of my favorites. “Success is as dangerous as failure. Hope is as hollow as fear,” are the lines that really struck me the first time I read it. There’s another, similar line in Mitchell’s version of Verse 46 – “There is no greater illusion than fear….Whoever can see through all fear will always be safe.”

Learning to deal with fear has been a big struggle in my life. To be able to approach it from the outside as an illusion makes sense to me, but making sense and leading to change are two different things. I think if I had one wish it would be to be fearless. I understand what the lines mean. I even have an idea of what it feels like, but it’s not something I can do consistently. On the other hand, being retired has finally given me a chance to live without hope for success. That comes naturally to me. It’s wonderful.

I’m going to take a look at some of the lines.

Success is as dangerous as failure.

Some other translations are more explicit about this. Chen writes “Honors elevate (shang),
Disgraces depress (hsia).” Addis and Lombardo translate “Favour debases us. Afraid when we get it, Afraid when we lose it.” So, success leads to fear and failure leads to fear.

Hope and fear are both phantoms that arise from thinking of the self.

Chen writes “I have great misfortunes, Because I have a body.” That’s a really interesting difference. Some say “self,” some say “body.” When they say “self” they generally seem to be talking about social misfortunes. When they talk about the “body,” they talk about physical or medical misfortunes. That seems like a big difference. With the first, I get the feeling of the self as an unfortunate illusion. With the second I get the feeling of the body as something good that I can’t have if I’m not willing to face the negative consequences.

When we don't see the self as self, what do we have to fear?

Chen writes "If I don't have a body, What misfortunes do I have?" Addis and Lombardo say "No self, No distress." Ivanhoe translates "When I no longer have a body, what calamity could I possibly have?

See the world as your self.
Have faith in the way things are.
Love the world as your self;
then you can care for all things.

Chen writes

Therefore treasure the body as the world,
As if the body can be entrusted to the world.
Love the body as the world,
As if the body can be entrusted to the world.

What does it mean to see the world as yourself? What does it mean to treasure your body as the world? To see your self as part of the whole, as unified with the Tao? And your body? Again, the use of "self" vs. "body" seems to make a big difference in the meaning.

One stanza says you can care for all things, the other says you can let the world care for you. Is that right? I'm not sure. I think this ties in with wu wei. If we let our actions arise spontaneously, we won't damage the world.

Success is as dangerous as failure.

Some other translations are more explicit about this. Chen writes “Honors elevate (shang),
Disgraces depress (hsia).” Addis and Lombardo translate “Favour debases us. Afraid when we get it, Afraid when we lose it.” So, success leads to fear and failure leads to fear. — T Clark

The A.C Muller version gives a different emphasis on the quality of the fear by translating the character of jīng in its meaning: "to startle."

Muller's first line reads: "Accept humiliation as a surprise." The rest of his version is too intent upon drafting a maxim than explaining the text for my liking but the physicality of interpreting the first line is interesting.
Only "bodies" react to surprises. Using the word "self" seems counterproductive here. The equality of success and failure concerns a connection that doesn't involve how obviously different the results are for us as benefits. The alternative to fear is not a change in the reaction itself but where the "body" is.

Beyond the shock of humiliation, there is dread for the future. Maybe this verse is about isolation.

Is this a friend of yours? — T Clark

Why do you ask ? What does it matter ?
Why would a sage sent from Heaven not be a friend ?

So, you're saying she smells nice? — T Clark

Saige: Sagaxa by any other name would smell as sweet.
Me: It depends on where you are standing and what direction the wind is blowing.

Verse 13

Right away it reminds me of Marcus Aurelius (MA) and Stoicism. I gave a link earlier re comparative philosophies. There is a close connection between those of the West and East. Perhaps that is why I am attracted to this discussion...I can understand the sense of it, if not all the words and terms.

As @Valentinus said earlier:

I read the works as centrally concerned with how to navigate the real world.
There are elements of the mysterious that are important not to exclude. The different translators express different opinions on this dimension. Talking about those matters seems to be the biggest divide in traditions.
So, with that in mind, The Enchiridion or Handbook of Epictetus matches a lot of the imperative quality of the speech even if what the problem is said to be starts from such different beginnings. — Valentinus

The Tao is not a thing, it is an experience. Lao Tzu is leading us to experience the Tao. Maybe the path will be different for different people. — T Clark

I think that the Tao is not a thing or an experience. It just is. It's the source from which all things come and to which all things return. Lao Tzu poetically guides us in the philosophy...the practice. The 'How to...'

MA talks about 'universal nature'. So, it seems similar in referring to the cause and wordless interconnection of all existence on Earth and non-existence or non-substance in Heaven.

The apparent aim is to be guided by this 'force' so that we can navigate a world taking good care of ourselves and our resources so as to reach a state of wellbeingness.

Stoicism

According to its teachings, as social beings, the path to eudaimonia (happiness, or blessedness) is found in accepting the moment as it presents itself, by not allowing oneself to be controlled by the desire for pleasure or by the fear of pain, by using one's mind to understand the world and to do one's part in nature's plan, and by working together and treating others fairly and justly. — wiki

The key is 'Care'.

What does it mean to see the world as yourself? What does it mean to treasure your body as the world? To see your self as part of the whole, as unified with the Tao? And your body? Again, the use of "self" vs. "body" seems to make a big difference in the meaning. — T Clark

The individual is part of the whole - see later in post.
I am not sure the difference between 'self' and 'body' is the issue here. Both are our concern - the physical and the mental or spiritual aspects.

Ivanhoe talks of apprehension and reverence.

Saige tells me, as if I couldn't see for myself, that the text both asks and answers the questions.

Q: What does it mean to be apprehensive about favour and disgrace ?
A: To receive it is to be in the position of a subordinate. When you get it be apprehensive. When you lose it be apprehensive.

In other words, be careful. If our happiness and sense of self-worth rely on others, then we might be harmed. Take care of yourself.
Just look at those looking to increase or abandon 'friends' on social media.
What is a friend?

Yes, Saige, I hear ya'. Favour and disgrace can't be trusted. Both can bring harm. Be cautious.
Got it.

Next Q: What does it mean to revere calamity as you revere your own body ?
A: I can suffer calamity only because I have a body.

Saige giggles. What's so funny ?
''I think there is a little joke here - when I no longer have a body I am dead. What calamity could befall the dead?''

S. also sees apprehension and reverence as modes of care.
A central concern to individual bodies and the world.
The body is a part of the whole world.
What does it mean to take care of, or to care for either ?

Well, one answer to that would be: First do no harm. Avoid harm.
Those who care for the world must know how to prevent potential calamity.
They can't do that without looking after themselves first.
Promote good health, prevent ill health.
Knowledge is power.

The A.C Muller version gives a different emphasis on the quality of the fear by translating the character of jīng in its meaning: "to startle." — Valentinus

D.C. Lau uses "startle" also.

Muller's first line reads: "Accept humiliation as a surprise." The rest of his version is too intent upon drafting a maxim than explaining the text for my liking but the physicality of interpreting the first line is interesting. — Valentinus

Some translations say "surprise" some say "fear". Some translations say "body" some say "self." The choices all make sense, but they mean significantly different things. I like "fear" better because it means more to me personally. In the same way, I like "self" better. That seems like a more profound meaning to me. For me, one version (fear/self) means look inside yourself. The other (surprise/body) seems more like "Hey, chill out."

The equality of success and failure concerns a connection that doesn't involve how obviously different the results are for us as benefits. — Valentinus

I think that's the point - we need to reexamine whether the benefits of success are really benefits, since it puts us in a vulnerable position. It seems to go back to the old "Don't struggle for honors' argument.

Beyond the shock of humiliation, there is dread for the future. Maybe this verse is about isolation. — Valentinus

I think there is dread for the future in both success and failure. Or at least Lao Tzu thinks so. I'm not sure what you mean by "isolation" in this context.

Looking more closely at the surprise/fear; body/self thing makes me think I have missed something in this verse.

Looking more closely at the surprise/fear; body/self thing makes me think I have missed something in this verse. — T Clark

I feel the same. The ball gets more slippery the more I handle it. However one frames the fear, it seems like the verse goes from not being overwhelmed by one means or another to the good leader treating his milieu as if it was his own self/body. I don't understand the instructions.

I think there is dread for the future in both success and failure. Or at least Lao Tzu thinks so. I'm not sure what you mean by "isolation" in this context. — T Clark

For me, the inequality between being shamed or being honored is connected to the fear of failing to accomplish a task or duty. Beyond the pain of embarrassment or the pleasure of recognition, what is most scary about the prospect of failure is the withdrawal of trust by others to do something. During 40 years of work in the building trade, the confidence of others grew as my skills became more capable and my familiarity with what was in front of me grew.

But that process only happened because I risked the loss of that confidence by trying something that was not mine yet. When the risk didn't work out, I became relatively isolated by those I gambled with.

In the realm of personal relationships, the loss of trust can end the party entirely.

Why do you ask ? What does it matter ? — Amity

Often when someone references a source, I go look it up on the web. I tried that but didn't find anything, so I wondered if this was someone you could give me a link to.

I think that the Tao is not a thing or an experience. It just is. It's the source from which all things come and to which all things return. Lao Tzu poetically guides us in the philosophy...the practice. The 'How to...' — Amity

I think the practice, the how to, refers to the experience of the Tao. It can't be known or understood, only surrendered to.

There is a close connection between those of the West and East. — Amity

There is only one world. All philosophers are describing the same thing.

What does it mean to see the world as yourself? What does it mean to treasure your body as the world? To see your self as part of the whole, as unified with the Tao? And your body? Again, the use of "self" vs. "body" seems to make a big difference in the meaning.
— T Clark

The individual is part of the whole - see later in post. I am not sure the difference between 'self' and 'body' is the issue here. Both are our concern - the physical and the mental or spiritual aspects. — Amity

My body and my self are both things I call "me," but they are really different. It means something different to say "See your body as the world" rather than "See your self as the world." Except, in some way, apparently, it's not different.

Ivanhoe talks of apprehension and reverence. — Amity

S. also sees apprehension and reverence as modes of care.
A central concern to individual bodies and the world. — Amity

I do like Ivanhoe's take on this verse, although I don't see the significance of apprehension/reverence.

when I no longer have a body I am dead. — Amity

Not necessarily. I can also have no body when I have seen through the illusion that my body is my self.

I don't understand the instructions. — Valentinus

I think a lot of Lao Tzu's instructions are "Hey, Valentinus, over here, pay attention to this."

For me, the inequality between being shamed or being honored is connected to the fear of failing to accomplish a task or duty. Beyond the pain of embarrassment or the pleasure of recognition, what is most scary about the prospect of failure is the withdrawal of trust by others to do something. — Valentinus

This is something I've been thinking about a lot recently. I've had lots of talks with my son who lost his job and career to Covid 19 at the age of 35. He is horribly afraid that he has disappointed people. That he will disappoint people. I think this is something that is especially important for men. I think jobs, achievement, mean something different for men than they do for women. For women, they're something. For men, they're everything.

Retiring has put a whole new perspective on this issue. Suddenly, I'm not defined by my duties or people's expectations of me. That can be hard, but it can also be incredibly freeing. I recommend that everyone retire immediately.