Introduction

This verse states something structurally true but often overlooked: resolving a conflict is not the same as upholding Integrity (德, dé). It exposes the limitations of compensatory gestures and clarifies what must be held if one is to actually Weave the Way.

At this point in the text, a certain level of familiarity and internal coherence is assumed. The structure of this text unfolds recursively, reflecting the reality it describes. Several cross-references are noted below, and revisiting them is essential to engaging this verse as part of the whole.

Translation

In resolving Great Resentments,
there will be leftover resentment.
How can that be good?

“The Wise” grasp the blame,
and do not blame others.

Therefore,
Having Integrity manages boundaries.
Lacking Integrity manages their removal.

Heaven’s Way has no favorites,
constantly offering what is appropriate.

Commentary

In Resolving Great Resentments,
there will be leftover resentment.
How can that be good?

Conflict and resentment are natural parts of life. Typically, even when a conflict is resolved, some lingering bad feelings remain. This verse opens by pointing to this all-too-prevalent situation and then poses a question that reads two ways simultaneously.

There’s a sardonic reading of “How can that be good?” There was conflict. That’s not great. There’s lingering resentment. That’s not great either. Once such a dynamic develops, it’s just not a good situation. In other words, do everything we can from the beginning to be in Integrity with Weaving the Way so that we don’t have ruptures to repair. Yet we know that part of the Dao is conflict so the text can’t be promoting unfounded idealism. This leads us to the following reading.

“How can that be good?” in a pragmatic way. There was conflict that needs to be repaired and everyone is going to have a healing process. How can that be done well?

The following two phrases reveal how people navigate these rupture-repair situations. First, in what is common, admired, and can be skillful; however, isn’t truly beneficial. The next lines reveal what Weaving the Way offers as a superior solution.

“The Wise” grasp the blame,
and do not blame others.

Taking personal accountability for things and not continuing the fight by trying to make the other person take accountability is an important first step in the process. Left there, the structure of the rupture is never addressed. One “martyr” sacrifices their truth on the altar of peace and the other “wins” by being absolved of their impact. However, true harmonization doesn’t ensue, and the conflict rears its ugly head again in the future. This continues the rejection of idealized passivity we saw in verse 78.

Therefore,
Having Integrity manages boundaries.
Lacking Integrity manages their removal.

While fiendishly simple in concept, the ideal result is quite hard-won. Maintaining boundaries demands a radical clarity of what is mine, what is yours, how did our intentions clash with our impacts, and what will I decide is truly unforgivable. I don’t think it’s any coincidence that this line shows up near the end of our text. At this point, we have read so many verses related to introspection, meditative realization, deconstruction of selfing structures, and alignment with broader natural processes that we finally may have a chance of understanding boundaries.

In all of my investigations, here are three things I’ve learned about boundaries:

My boundaries are my own and I can choose to enforce them, change them, or allow them to be violated.
Boundaries create useful real-but-not-true separation, but are often a primary source of conflict that require force to uphold: they better be worth it.
Boundaries are not intrinsically shared or common across peoples. I am responsible for communicating mine and navigating their implications.

For more on boundaries in Weaving the Way, check out verses 1, 8, 49, and 74.

To be out of integrity is to perform behaviors that intend to remove, reduce, disrespect, or blur the boundaries of others so that behaviors which cause disharmony may persist.

Heaven’s Way has no favorites,
constantly offering what is appropriate.

The original Chinese says this in a way that’s quite shocking for the time it was written. Literally, it is “The Way of Heaven has no family.” The primary social structure at the time was familial unity, and the extension of close personal ties to one’s group or clan. To say that the Dao, the Way, does not engage in any kinship ties or favoritism is radical. It says that everyone, without exception, is treated according to their due. No one gets a pass. The whole, the entirety of the cosmos, is more important than any personal preference.

The most immediate implication is this: any boundary we choose to uphold is only in Integrity if it offers what is appropriate to all involved. It is through sustained appropriateness that the deeper function of kinship is realized.