Taoist Texts

"敲破尊鼎，损毁家当"

 

The very original meaning, if we want to use that, was to break a ritual Ding (or household ornament generally).

So, perhaps a sense of extreme misfortune? Like breaking a mirror?

 

4. 敗道 [bai4dao4], adj., one who fails in discipline to become Taoist immortal.

 

 

yes thats an extreme misfortune, that

 

 

 

Not about what they want. About what's best.

John F. Kennedy — 'Victory has a hundred fathers and defeat is an orphan.[News conference, April 21 1961]'

 

 

seems 'best ' is an orphan too;). best for whom?

Hi HE;)

敗failure.

note that 從事 is a compound character meaning "attending to." It's perhaps intentionally less strong than "ruling over."

this is an excellent note. Yes it is an euphemism, much in the same vein as a military expedition to vanquish a neigbouring tribe, to sacrifice the prisoners was called 'pacifying' in those times.

I would just add that 敗failure is a derivative sense. its original meaning was specifically 'to defeat' or 'a defeat'


(1) To fail, usu. 失敗：事情，計劃失敗了.
(2) (AC) to defeat: 敗秦師 defeated the [qin2] army;
(modn.) 把敵打敗 defeat the enemy, also 擊敗.
(3) To break (alliance, treaty 敗盟，敗約).
(4) To spoil (good name of family 敗家風). Adj. (1) Defeated: 敗兵，敗軍 defeated troops;
打敗仗 defeated in battle;
敗不成軍 army is completely routed.
http://humanum.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/Lexis/Lindict/

 

the all myriad things are assisted (in returning to) their nature. In this way they do not fail, no?

Hmmm..i dont know, did they want to return to their nature? Have they been asked what they want? Is their nature to be used and discarded as that of the straw dogs? If yes then they have not fail for sure.

 

Interesting, you guys.

 

Practicality. Is it useful (to me)?

It coulld have been in your CO days;)

So, the "more Taoist" way is perhaps less realistic?

 

To me, yes, i always poke gentle fun at modern taoists, but even by the time TTC was first written down sometime before 300 BC it has lost its practicall meaning becoming a sacred text whose meaning ranges from abstract philosophy to intenal alchemy to self-cultivation. Its existence in many variants hints that it was not properly understood, being twisted to suit a scribe's world view.

 

 

 

Can this part in the GD be interpreted in such a manner, though?

 

聖人谷不谷 -- referring to the sage himself, and not the people, not wanting to desire

Thats certainly how the scribe undertstood it, but I think the scribe omitted the reference to the people becouse it made no sense to him . Same with the next line 學不學 where the reference to the populace is retained but is still read as a reference to the sage not the populace.

 

Now when i see 'not to teach' and 'populace' in the same sentence i can not but recall Confucious'

 

泰伯:

子曰：「民可使由之，不可使知之。」Tai Bo:

The Master said, "The people may be made to follow a path of action, but they may not be made to understand it."

 

 

 

so i infer that 'not teaching' referes to the people, and project that on the preceding line as well.

Ah..well..

 

聖人谷不谷 The wise man desires not to desire,

不貴難㝵之貨 And does not covet rare things;

學不學 Learns not to learn,

復眾之所過 And returns to the beginning;

 

Practically (and linguistically), does this make sense?

 

Learn not to learn / undo one's learning / not hold onto ideas, and one goes back (mentally) to the beginning, whence everyone else has come (but no longer resides) -- i.e. like a newborn, no preconceptions

Well yes it does make sense. A very metaphorical, Taoist, benign sense.

 

 

To me, the reality looks way darker:

 

《群書治要•德經》:

為者敗之，執者失之，those who act get vanquished, those who cling - lose

聖人無為故無敗，the sages do not act and therefore do not get vanquished

民之從事，常於幾成而敗之，In ruling over the commoners, (the rulers) always wait till (insurgency) come to a head before vanquishing it,

慎終如始，則無敗事，but if (the ruler) would take same care in the beginning (of the uprising) as he did at the maturity of it – then he would vanquish it with non-action

是以聖人 therefore the sages (make) the commoners

欲不欲，不貴難得之貨，what is desirable – not to desire, so (masses) do not value the hard to get goods,

學不學，復衆人之所過，what is teachable – not to learn, to check (復) the transgressions of masses

以輔萬物之自然，而不敢為焉。 in these way all things are guided naturally never daring to act up.

Funny story:

 

 

孔子不聽，顏回為御，子貢為右，往見盜跖。盜跖乃方休卒徒太山之陽，膾人肝而餔之。孔子下車而前，見謁者曰：「魯人孔丘，聞將軍高義，敬再拜謁者。」謁者入通，盜跖聞之大怒，目如明星，髮上指冠，曰：「此夫魯國之巧偽人孔丘非邪？為我告之：『爾作言造語，妄稱文、武，冠枝木之冠，帶死牛之脅，多辭繆說，不耕而食，不織而衣，搖脣鼓舌，擅生是非，以迷天下之主，使天下學士不反其本，妄作孝弟而儌倖於封侯富貴者也。子之罪大極重，疾走歸！不然，我將以子肝益晝餔之膳。』」 Confucius, however, did not attend to this advice. With Yan Hui as his charioteer, and Zi-gong seated on the right, he went to see Dao Zhi, whom he found with his followers halted on the south of Tai-shan, and mincing men's livers, which he gave them to eat. Confucius alighted from his carriage, and went forward, till he saw the usher, to whom he said, 'I, Kong Qiu of Lu, have heard of the general's lofty righteousness,' bowing twice respectfully to the man as he said so. The usher went in and announced the visitor. But when Dao Zhi heard of the arrival, he flew into a great rage; his eyes became like blazing stars, and his hair rose up and touched his cap. 'Is not this fellow,' said he, 'Kong Qiu, that artful hypocrite of Lu? Tell him from me, "You invent speeches and babble away, appealing without ground to (the examples of) Wen and Wu. The ornaments on your cap are as many as the branches of a tree, and your girdle is (a piece of skin) from the ribs of a dead ox, The more you talk, the more nonsense you utter. You get your food without (the labour of) ploughing, and your clothes without (that of) weaving. You wag your lips and make your tongue a drum-stick. You arbitrarily decide what is right and what is wrong, thereby leading astray the princes throughout the kingdom, and making its learned scholars not occupy their thoughts with their proper business. You recklessly set up your filial piety and fraternal duty, and curry favour with the feudal princes, the wealthy and the noble. Your offence is great; your crime is very heavy. Take yourself off home at once. If you do not do so, I will take your liver, and add it to the provision for to-day's food."'

From the Guodian A7 (slips 10-13)

I don't think there's anything particularly contentious here.

 

contention stems only from inquiring what does it actually mean in practical terms.

.. I still want to suggest that they might have been less inclined to believe ideas about a big woman creating nobles and commoners separately out of clay...

 

May be. But Lao-zi did apparently did believe in Di being an intermediate creator.

 

道德經:

道沖而用之或不盈。淵兮似萬物之宗。挫其銳，解其紛，和其光，同其塵。湛兮似或存。吾不知誰之子，象帝之先。

Dao De Jing:

(The fountainless)

The Dao is (like) the emptiness of a vessel; and in our employment of it we must be on our guard against all fulness. How deep and unfathomable it is, as if it were the Honoured Ancestor of all things! We should blunt our sharp points, and unravel the complications of things; we should attemper our brightness, and bring ourselves into agreement with the obscurity of others. How pure and still the Dao is, as if it would ever so continue! I do not know whose son it is. It might appear to have been before God.

http://ctext.org/dao-de-jing

stationary like trees;

stationary was trees

 

I am reading now the author notes and I have one more question: Does 密戶 have the same meaning of 玄關? I am not quite sure about the Chinese characters.

 

Thanks for your help.

Hi Luciano

 

I dont know since i dont have the whole text except this http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_935678810101cj0q.html

In general 密戶 = kidneys, while 玄關 refers to energy passages, but the usage varies from author to author.

At one point, there were no people. When people came along, we didn't suddenly explode into all the types we now see. It was gradual. But it started with something.

Yes. You see the start was different in judeo-xtian vs. oriental models. In the former

 

According to Genesis 2:7 "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." Hence jeffersonian 'all men created equal', which is a "self evident truth"

 

but

 

 

 

She began creating human beings fromyellow clay, sculpting each one individually. After she had created hundreds of figures in this way, she still had more to make but had grown tired of the laborious process. So instead of handcrafting each figure, she dipped a rope in clay and flicked it so blobs of clay landed everywhere; each of these blobs became a common person. Nüwa still laboriously crafted some people out of clay; these people became nobles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N%C3%BCwa#Creator

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It was when people first started realizing that we could manipulate nature, and each other, with our intelligence (language) that the in-lineness with Tao was lost.

True dat.

Dusty,

 

If they were really that simple, free from dazzling and trickery, their outside and inside character would be the same.

thats the point - they were not that simple, TTC says they appeared simple.

 

 

 

Then the author is saying that "though I cannot describe exactly what was going on in their heads, by describing how they acted and moved I can give you some idea of what they were like."

 

that is exactly right.

 

In other words,

 

 

古之善為士者，微妙玄通 The noble ones of old were subtle masters of the mystery

(or)

古之善為道者，微妙玄通 The ancients who were in line with the Way were subtle masters of the mystery

深不可識 deep beyond our understanding

夫唯不可識，故強為之容 As they were beyond our understanding, if I had to describe them / we might describe them as...

 

and we then get a description of people who were hesitant, timid, cautious, yielding, simple, confused.

 

no, not who were. who appeared so.

 

 

Not just because some people appeared that way, but because all people were once like that.

no. if all people were like that there would not be the main paradigm of taoism - division of humankind into commoners and sages, kings and subjects, gods and men. IMHO, you are obliterating primordial elitism with the 18th century egalitarianism.

What makes it oddest for me is that the rest of this chapter, chapter 15 itself, calls the ancients hesitant, cautious, simple, confused... So are they simple and obvious, or profound and mysterious?

the chapter says : 故{強為}之容，曰：therefore we at least describe tenuously their exterior behavior...

 

so they are simple on the outside and profound on the inside. To commoners they appear as passive fools - this is their simplicity; but things tend to work out for them without the commoners being able to understand how - that would be their profundity.

 

 

Also, being simple and yet profound at the same time it is not a contradiction in terms. The sea is also both simple (because there is nothing but water in it) yet also it is profound since the sea waters are deep.

the intention of the mind is placed into the lower abdomen, it will create an alchemical reaction such as the one that takes place between fire and water

as simple as that.

... An eye from above which sees all the roads traveled.

 

 

 

It is interesting that the Chu Script replaces the impersonal road with the human heart... Then all three come together in othe scripts.

Is that a road? I never paid attantion to this variant, thanx. lemme peer at it some more.

for an academic POV, this is a good read:

http://www.sino-platonic.org/complete/spp235_de_character_early_China.pdf

 

Yes, Scott A. Barnwell did a great job for an amateur.

 

Thanks for your answer.

 

Does 他生 literally means another life and then you have translated as future life?

correct, except it is a set combo meaning next life.

http://www.zdic.net/c/6/37/86389.htm

I am reading again the book and I have found a sentence that I am not really comfortable with my understanding. Could you please help me again?

Of course an abcence of a consensus and a big IMHO were implied;)

 

Selecting 無味 over 無未 is supported by the fact of 無味 being a set combo.

 

The overall thrust of the paragraph is about the nipping a problem in the bud rather than dealing with the difficulty when it is already a big one, that would be non-action. To borrow Marblehead's example: dragging a kid from under the bus is action, making sure that the kid knows not to run into the street - is non-action.

 

The idea that prononciation was different in antiquity originated with Karlgren, i think his work is mainly debunked by now.

So perhaps it is meant as 味 after all...?

yes it is 'taste' , also there is a pun intended 無味 wúwèi=無為 wúwéi

 

 

"Taste without tasting", or "Flavour knows no flavour"

almost correct: 'taste what is still tasteless"

You bet Taoist Texts.

 

I also found this diagram that might help with verses 1-2, as well as verses 3-5 which follow.

just TT will do This all is well and good and quite scholarly, but coming back to the departure point of this whole text: 'knowing where to stop' is a gross mistranslation. What that formulaic expression really means is 'to stop knowledge'. How big is the rift between the former and the latter is up to you to judge;).

 

Hopefully this helps!

yes it does thanks a lot Turner. I will just note for what its worth: in the paragraphs that you have quoted this verb 止 seems to be absent. Its probably unimportant.

When I first read the Tao Te Ching almost fifty years ago I took the first verse to be an ancient version of the fundamental axiom of General Semantic, 'the map is not the territory'

of course the map is not the territory. that would be silly. the map is where the territory comes from.

 

[2] 知止而后有定、

 

When you know where to stop,

 

what does this mean?

Thanks for the translation!

 

I still have two questions:

 

1) Does 了當 means final accomplishment?

in this context yes

Search for "了當" [Condition = Ignore case, Substring]

 

直

Words 16. 直捷 [zhi2jie2]², adj. direct (communication, line): 直捷 (or 直截) 了當 phr., simple and direct (opp. beating about the bush).

 

 

了

Words 5. 了當 [liao3dang4], adj., as in 直截了當 simple and direct, uncomplicated; (MC) settled.

 

 

色

Words 15. 色澤 [se4ze2], n., luster (of jade, pearl); 色澤兒 extraneous remarks, descriptive additions: 說話別帶色澤兒，直接了當多好 come straight to the point without the frostings.

 

 

 

 

 

 

2) In the sentence below, which is the correct character: 體 or 本 ?

 

以還其 體 or 本 ?

since the context talks about return it makes more sense to return to the root 本 . In general i would recommend you use copies typed in simplified characters, its easier on the eyes and less confusion;)