OldDog

I agree with Marblehead ... weakness is not a word that conveys the concept very well. Suggests inability through lack of power. Ni says it well. I have always had trouble with the "return/returning". Suggests something positional ... or something had been departed from ... as if it were separate ... and where it went could have been anywhere. This may just be a personal bias with the word "return". I like Lin Yutang's use of "reversion". It speaks to something being cyclic within itself ... without having lost or been separsted from its other condition(s). It has the same notion of change as is conveyed in the Yijing ... which I find satisfying. This may be the most significant chapter in the DDJ.

I have always felt that a good translator needs to be a bit of a poet and not just a technical translator. A poet has the ability to express things that are difficult to describe in just words ... and do it in as concise a way possible ... more meaning, fewer words.

... must be feeling a bit like Dr Demento this week.

True enough. Words ... written or spoken ... are simply the predominant form for communicating ideas ... emphasis on the word ideas. Effective communication has to do with creating a mental image (idea) in the mind of the recipient. Some people are better at it than others. In my experience, words alone are insufficient. Whoa, Stosh. I have no doubt that authors have original intent ... just my or anyone elses ability to know it. Intent and meaning do not have to be the same thing. As far as inventing meaning goes ... we all do that. We listen to what is being said and decide if it has meaning for us ... or not. If no, then we don't retain the info. If yes, we incorporate it ... or at least what we think we understand ... into our world view. How well we understand what the author meant is dependent on his/her ability to create an image/impression in the mind of the recipient. And that is an art form. Good discussion!

You make reference to ample evidence ... which is not yet on the table for discussion ... antecedent missing ... so it's hard to say just what you are referring to. I am always suspicious of things that are clearly understandable. If one accepts an assertion ... has one really learned anything, internalized it? I would argue that it is precisely lack of clarity that causes us to turn an idea over in our minds ... explore it's possibilities ... develop a sense of its limits. In fact, I think an argument can be made that there can be no such thing as clairty. What we express as words is no more than that ... words. Words have different meanings to different people ... especially where there are cross cultural influences ... and it is unlikely that the words will be received the same way among a diverse group of people. So, how do we get to a point where ... as you say ... a majority would agree? One way would be through discussion ... if forums like this one ... where ideas, interpretations are shared in a collegial manner... and we can all coalesce around a common understanding. So, I'm fine with creative writing ... varying interpretations ... gives me room to come to a workable understanding of my own.

I'll leave that to the Shaw Brothers. ; ) As for the other ... everyone knows the Lord looks after fools and drunks.

To me, this was the key passage. I assume this translation is from Mair, since you mentioned this is what you are currently reading. Sometimes I have difficulty with Mair, this is one of those times. I had to return to Watson to appreciate this. [He may] unify his nature, nourish his breath, unite his virtue, and thereby communicate with that which creates all things. A man like this guards what belongs to Heaven and keeps it whole. His spirit has no flaw, so how can things enter in and get at him. The lesson I have always drawn from this is that one should conduct oneself so as not to become entangled in the petty problems of social interaction; rising above such concerns allows one not to be drawn in and distracted from what is really important.

Not to mention ziran. Would seem there is considerable overlap in wuwei, ziran and the uncarved block ... they all inform each other.

Not sure why but this song ? Is buzzing around in my head this morning. .... maybe its prophetic.

Preferring Lin Yutang's translation ... The Tao never does, Yet through it everything is done, If princes and dukes can keep the Tao, The world will of its own accord be reformed. When reformed and rising to action, Let it be restrained by the Nameless pristine simplicity. The Nameless pristine simplicity Is stripped of desire (for contention). By stripping of desire quiescence is achieved, And the world arrives at peace of its own accord. The only piece of this that I would change is the sixth and seventh lines. I would have them read Let it be restrained through Nameless pristine simplicity. Nameless pristine simplicity Is stripped of desire (for contention). This slight change ensures it is understood that from the position of simplicity is action that is appropriate to the circumstances and time. This harkens back to the discussion thread on the Uncarved Block. Lin couples this chapter with an excerpt from Zhuangzi where it is said Passivity means calm and when calm reverts to action, every action is right.

I expect this chapter is hard to translate. I don't read or speak Chinese so I don't know for sure. But the first handful of lines often do not read well in English without resorting to a more elaborate sentence stucture. For this reason I think the Chinese text must be relying on some manner of speech that is not being captured in English. Ni's, I think captures the idea well, but is too wordy. I take no offence at the preachy-ness of his rendering since I think it is inherent in this passage. Dealing with such a difficult passage and concept is where skill as a writer comes in ... how to convey precisely and concisely requires great facility with both languages and a sense of the poetic. I, as usual, return to Lin Yutang's translation. The man of superior character is not (conscious of his) character, Hence he has character. The man of inferior character (is intent on) not losing character, Hence he is devoid of character. The man of superior character never acts, Nor ever (does so) with an ulterior motive. The man of inferior character acts, And (does so) with an ulterior motive. The man of superior kindness acts, But (does so) without an ulterior motive. The man of superior justice acts, And (does so) with an ulterior motive. (But when) the man of superior li acts and finds no response, He rolls up his sleeves to force it on others. Therefore: After Tao is lost, then (arises the doctrine of) humanity, After humanity is lost, then (arises the doctrine of) justice. After justice is lost, then (arises the doctrine of) Ii. Now Ii is the thinning out of loyalty and honesty of heart. And the beginning of chaos. The prophets are the flowering of Tao And the origin of folly. I think Lin, in as few words possible, expresses the notion of the breakdown of Dao and virtue. Use of the phrase ulterior motive underscores the role of intent in the breakdown.

I continue to be intrigued by the comments (Marblehead, Rene, et al) made regarding the notion of potential from the position of simplicity of the undivided block of wood. I went back and re-read several translations of DDJ28. In that chapter the idea of the uncarved block seems to be one of a desirable state to return to. Return being the operative concept. Suggesting that one conducts oneself maintaining the way of virtue and then returns to a state of empty preparedness and potential ready to respond spontaneously and effortlessly as needed. Responding from the position of simplicity without form ... uncarved, if you will ... assures that future responses are appropriate to circumstances and the time. I think such an interpretation informs understanding of both Zhuangzi and Nieye.

So, the virtue is in the potential represented by the unconditioned state. Nice. It allows for growth and movement. This interpretation resolves the seeming objections to the term "uncarved block". Shows that we can better understand what is meant by uncarved by asking what it means to be carved. A good device to keep in mind. Should be helpful on other analysis as well.

I would not make that leap. If one takes the Uncarved Block metaphor in the sense of simplicity, plainess of heart and living, unembellished, it is not hard to imagine someone retaining that quality while refining his art. Consider the styles of chinese and japanese art where the painting is sparse and makes extensive use of space. Or, caligraphy. Or, tea ceremony. There are probably other countless masteries that strive for simplicity and economy of form and motion. Indeed, these are possible only becuase the master is able to maintain a sense of humility, frugality and simplicity ... and focus. I think Laotse would be accepting of that.

I get your point ... but never was too concerned since I understood the concept. Words ... language ... is funny. Different words conjure up different images for different people. As said ... once you have the meaning, you can forget the words.

I checked my translation from Lin Yutang and in footnote he defines it as ... P'u, important Taoist idea, the uncarved, the unembellished, the natural goodness and honesty of man. Generally used to mean simplicity, plainness of heart and living. I have lent out my copy of Derek Lin. What does he have to say about the translation of Pu?

OK, weather. Even modern days sages (weathermen) do a poor job of forecasting when so constrained ... a month or a year in advance. Still, it is possible to know when the tides will rise ... that it will be warmer some months and colder others ... I would even go so far as to say that a well attuned sage can sense when the energies of heaven and earth change and movement turns toward spring or autumn. And as for politics ... it is possible for the politically astute to understand when a political change is in the wind ... call it a backlash ... maybe even the much recently discussed shift in the mandate of heaven. But you are right ... sometimes just ain't no accountin for things. Once again a qualification. No one ... even Laozi ... was saying the such knowledge was always complete and exhaustive ... just possible. And no doubt a sage's knowledge would be improved by first hand observation. Don't think the intended message was to ignore first hand knowledge. Just that a sages intuitive grasp of circumstances and process often appears to grant knowledge thst escapes others.

I agree that Cleary's rendering conveys the message well. However, object mildly to the judgement of correct English. The purpose is communication ... so, if violating the rules that I learned in Mrs. Myers' 12th grade English class furthers the communication ... so be it. Sort of comes under the heading of creative license. ; )

True enough ... but it is equally remarkable how limited ones knowedge can be even after having fully observed the actual events. There are facts (events, places, dates) and there are processes. The facts may change but underlying processes are essentially the same. Understanding these processes allows one to see. Perhaps ... but I don't think so.

I'm glad you asked. Seems to me that this is the deep seated knowledge the sage has of the Dao and how change manifests in the world.

Some random thoughts ... Instictively, I want to first look at what knowledge is. There is knowledge we have from experience and the conclusions (however tentative) that we draw.from it. As organisms, we trust what our senses tell us ... not always a good thing ... but for the most part gets us by in the world. Then there is book learning. We are kind of used to it but is it.really knowledge? I can read a recipe but do I really know what a cake is? How about intuition? I think it is a form of knowledge that is under-rated. It is a source that many people draw on before.taking action. Knowing that you don't know is not BS. There is real value in knowing ... and more importantly, acknowledging ... that you don't know. It positions you to be open to experiences and understandings which you have not yet had. Not being able acknowledge you don't know is sick minded ... closed minded ... not open to new experience ... unable to grow and progress. And then, what kind of knowledge is it that allows for ... Without stepping outside one's doors, One can know what is happening in the world, Without looking out of one's windows, One can see the Tao of Heaven. The farther one pursues knowledge, The less one knows. Therefore the Sage knows without running about, Understands without seeing, Accomplishes without doing. (Ch. 47) This last may be the most important knowledge of them all.

Indeed, such weighty questions are best considered over a glass of ones favorite beverage else we take ourselves too seriously. ; )

Treading on controversial ground here. Dangerously close to saying that because everything we do is a manifestation of Dao that its all OK. Heading toward self justification here. And what about an autonomous self. Is it not conceivable that the Dao includes a certain degree of autonomy? What's wrong with that? How else do you account for all the aberrant forms of behavior? I can imagine ... imagination seeming to be acceptable in this thread ... having a degree of autonomous flexibility while still part of the Dao commonwealth ... if I may borrow from politics. Autonomous but not apart.

Interesting statement. I seem to recall that somewhere in my wanderings it being said thay the mind is the means (instrument?) by which we have access to the Dao. If this were true, it presumably would be the basis for various meditation traditions.

Well, as long as we are imagining, I'll jump in. Like Marbles, I have little or no contact ... that I am aware of ... with any spiritual domain. Call it lack of sensitivity or whatever ... I just have no personal experience to inform my understanding. I would be easily able to deny any such realm except for a couple of nagging thoughts. One is that many traditions ... but especially Buddhist and Daoist ... have this idea of attachment/clinging nature of mind as being problematic. But, is it mind or spirit ... or both ... that clings? Not being well versed in these ideas I hesitate to say. When I have thought about such things, I have had a thought informed by the notion of conservation of energy. That perhaps the spirit returns to some vast reservoir of spiritual energy available to be recycled in the next instance of life. But, I can also imagine that after death a spirit conditioned by clinging may have a difficult time departing. Which leads me to my next nagging thought. While I personnally have had no conscious interactions with spiritual entities, I have no doubt that there are those that have. Now, I am skeptical enough to be suspicious of such claims, except for one instance. Years ago, while visiting a cemetery with my wife and granddaughter, we caught her speaking as if to someone but there was no one there. She was not quite three years old at the time and completely without guile. When I asked who she was speaking to, she pointed and said the little girl. Now, I have never talked about this to anyone other than my wife. I only mention it now because there will undoubtedly be someone who cries BS about there being a spiritual realm. Me? I just don't know. Enough imagining. Sorry to have wandered so far astray.