lienshan

An example to highlight my approach to 'subjective' is the Guodian chapter 46 (Henricks and my own translation): Of vices - none is more onerous than wanting too much. Of defects - none brings more sorrow than the desire to gain. Of disasters - none is greater than not knowing when one has enough. The contentment one has when he knows that he has enough - This is abiding contentment indeed. There's no larger crime than extreme desire. There's no more sorrowful conflict than spoils sharing. There's no greater misfortune than not knowing when enough. What's forever enough: Sufficient knowledge is enough! The last line of this chapter is one of the most important lines of Tao Teh Ching. I read Laozi as saying, that "sufficient knowledge is enough!". That's subjective! 'enough' is a subjective matter: 'enough' means something objective to a buddhist monk, while 'enough' means anotherthing objective to a man like me with a firm, a family, etc. 'knowledge' is thus what counts! The last line translated literally: to know enough its to be enough this always enough indeed 'its to be' are the characters 'zhi wei' in classical chinese: 'zhi' marked 'wei' as the objective verb 'to be'. without 'zhi' meant 'wei' the subjective verb 'to do'. This is not a grammar lesson but only mentioned to tell, that Laozi's 'subjective' and 'objective' were closely connected to the classical language itself. It was changed after 221 BC and the the two Mawangdui versions were written in a reformed language and the Received version in another language!

Chapter 82 Expentant and then someone First causes the self-made Mother of everything. The can be a lump of earth and overflowing causes the envy-made Classic of everything. This inability to kill heaven and inability to bury earth is the inability to complete yin and yang. The "gentleman" knowing this says: (unreadable bamboo slip) Heaven and Dao value what's completed of weakness and naiveness by benefitting what's giving birth. To appreciate the hard of stabbing the strong is like to profit the soft of assisting the weak. Chapter 83 Below the soil is similar to the word earth. Above the air is similar to the word heaven. Dao is also their character; Early Dawn is their name. Why Dao follows what's duty surely rely on their name. Therefore is the duty completed and itself prolonged. That the sage follows duty does also rely on their name. Therefore is the merit completed and himself not boned. Heaven and earth are nominated side by side independently. Therefore perform their two boats in line not cultivated together. To administer heaven isn't enough because: The lowest height of west and north acts powerful. Earth and heaven are not enough: The highest low of east and south acts powerful. The moreover surplus from the lowest of the not enough from what's highest is like the moreover surplus from the highest of the not enough from what's lowest. What's a Laozi special is the structure of these two lines: To appreciate the hard of stabbing the strong is like to profit the soft of assisting the weak. The moreover surplus from the lowest of the not enough from what's highest is like the moreover surplus from the highest of the not enough from what's lowest. Laozi used this special way of philosophical argueing in many of his chapters. Put into a formula: A is to B like C is to D One of the best know examples is the last line of chapter 25: ren fa di is to di fa tian like tian fa dao is to dao fa zi ran That'll say all the "word-by-word-translators" miss most of Laozi's philosophical pointes. That's why they can't distinguish two Laozi texts from this Huang Lao text: The Great One gives birth to water and the return of water assists the Great One thus completing heaven and the heavenly return is a big assistance thus completing earth. The return of heaven and earth mutually assist thus completing light and spirit. The return of light and spirit mutually assist thus completing yin and yang. The return of yin and yang mutually assist thus completing the four seasons. The return of the four seasons mutually assist thus completing freeze and boil. The return of freeze and boil mutually assist thus completing moisture and fluid. The return of moisture and fluid mutually assist thus completing time and end. Therefore: What's time is the birth of moisture and fluid. What's moisture and fluid is the birth of freeze and boil. What's freeze and boil and what's the four seasons is the birth of yin and yang. What's yin and yang is the birth of light and spirit. What's light and spirit is the birth of heaven and earth. What's heaven and earth is the birth of the Great One. This is why the Great One conceals physical water and moves physical seasons.

What I dare state is, that the scholar Henricks was paid for translating the Guodian texts by the chinese communist authorities, and that he in my opinion peeped his earlier translations of the Mawangdui silk texts, whenever he didn't understood what the Guodian texts meant. And that no one untill now has questioned the quality of his Guodian texts translation, because where are the taoist translations of the Guodian texts? Why are there NO taoist translations of the earliest known Tao Teh Ching chapters??? What I dare not state is, that 'LaoZi's Dao is the Here and Now of each individuals?' I have ofcourse my own impression, when reading the Guodian texts my way, but my impression has no superiority to what you and others get from reading Tao Teh Ching your way.

Henricks is not a taoist his blog profile The Tao encompass all in the Shen Dao version of the Tao: "Even a clod of earth can't miss Tao" Most taoists use the terms 'not manifested' (wu) and 'manifested' (you) when discussing this subject/matter, while I suspect that the terms 'subjective' and 'objective' are closer to Laozi's point of view, when reading the Guodian texts. Are e.g. our minds, creating Subjectivity and Objectivity, subjective or objective? The ancient chinese character 'shen' meant both 'self' and 'body'.

A quote from Zhuangzi chapter 33: "The teachings of Shen Tao are not rules for the living but ideals for a dead man." That's the important difference between Laozi's Tao and the Tao of Shen Dao (the Huang Lao daoist school). Laozi's Tao is subjective, ideals for a living man, contrary to the objective Tao, ideals for a dead man. This important difference is not obvious, when reading the Received version of Tao Teh Ching, but clearcut when reading the 1993 exavacated Guodian copies of Laozi's original manuscript, that arguees against what's todays mainstream taoism ... try answer this simple question: Why is there no online available taoist translation of the Guodian Tao Teh Ching?

An author has to follow the contemporary grammar rules, if he/she wants a contemporary reader to be able to read a text as intented. The contemporary, warring states classical chinese, grammar rules are in my opinion described in professor Edwin G. Pulleyblank's "An outline of a classical chinese grammar", containing 256 samples from several warring states texts, Zhuangzi, Mencius, Zou Zhuang, etc. but not Laozi: That'll say Pulleyblank's samples are not self-confirming, when using them to read the exavacated Tao Teh Ching versions! An example could be chapter 1 line 1: dao ke dao ye fei heng dao ye Pulleyblank writes, that the formula X ye fei Y ye means 'it is X it is not Y' Pulleyblank writes, that the character 'ke' is always followed by a verb. My own study of his samples shows, that the negative 'fei' is always preceeding 'an objective noun'. So a rough translation of chapter 1 line 1 based on these grammar rules is: It is 'a walk maybe walking' it is not 'the eternal way'.

Sorry, but what you desire doesn't exist. The closest you can come in chinese are the 1993 exavacated Guodian bamboo slips (a chapter 25 example) A translation of the Guodian bamboo slips chapter 25 (by Robert G. Henricks) The problem of translating from classical chinese to english is using the character dao as example: Tao (dao) is in english a noun (the Way). Tao (dao) was in classical chinese both a noun and a verb: dao = a way (the objective noun) dao = a walk (the subjective noun) dao = walked on (the objective verb) dao = walking (the subjective verb) Laozi used the two subjective meanings when describing his own approach to Tao. Laozi used the two objective meanings when describing others approach to Tao. That's why 'to get the Tao' is 'to drop the Tao' because you cannot 'get a walk'.

to get the tao is to drop the tao both in a normal toilet and a stream beyond society

You're the only one making an absolutely ridiculous decision! Moderators are like referees in sport. Sometimes they are right and sometimes they are wrong, but those wasting others time complaining afterwards are always wrong!

If 'neng wei' mean 'able to act' then does 'shi yi' mean 'therefore'. But that's only a detail. What's important is, that the main stream translations only focus on 'below' and have thus difficulties explaining Laozi's use of both below and behind in the following lines. 'behind' must be the mountainvalleys, dried out in summer, when the mountainstreams have followed their natural course downwards and have become first a river and then the sea.

What's the connection of below and behind?

Water + gravity = rain Water + gravity + ground = mountainstream, river or sea Doesn't 'ability' and 'usability' express the difference between the two? si hai (four oceans) occur in this exavacated Shen Dao text no 51 A 'quick' translation: Laws aren't following Heaven. Inferiors aren't following Earth. Banishments emit from man. How is the interval combined? The heart of man and then rules what's water. A decided blokage of a thatching defence are the four seas of the nine states. Mutual similar to oneness. Learn it from water. Unlearn it from Yu. (the Great, Xia dynasty founder)

Hi Golden Flower Everyone interested in sharing information is more than wellcome

I try another shot: The river and the sea are what is regarded(1) the king of the 100 mountainstreams. They(2) use their ability to act the 100 mountainstreams below. This usability(3) acts the king of the 100 mountainstreams. (1) 'suo yi wei' meant in classical chinese the term 'what is regarded'. (2) The personal pronoun as subject was omitted in classical chinese. (3) 'yi neng' must be the subject (a noun) when 'wei' is the verb. That'll say what they cause, not what they are, make them king of the 100 mountainstreams. An alternative one liner translation: The river and the sea, which are regarded the kings of the 100 mountainstreams, use their ability to act the 100 mountainstreams below and this usability acts the king of the 100 mountainstreams.

The next sentence is in the Guodian version one of Laozi's greatest sentences: 38 characters inclussive 6 grammatical ye characters! Here displayed literal The position of a sage, the advance of the people, acting the body behind-made and his position, the elevation of the people, acting the speech below-made is like his position, the elevation of the people, is the people not overriding and his position, the advance of the people, is the people not disparaging. The structure of the whole sentence is put into Laozi's preferred arguement formula: A and B is like C and D That'll say A is like C and B is like D

You're right if literal context is a metaphor for ziran context One have to understand nature, the uncarved block, in order to understand this chapter: The lowest rock of the river and the ocean is the riverbed and the ocean bed! Grounded is the metaphor for the position of the sage in the next lines of the chapter. Grounded is not the metaphor for ChiDragon's translation

Are the River and Ocean good in placing themselves? Where are their chairs A river and a sea; which one rules the 100 mountainstreams? Regard this ability as the low of the 100 mountainstreams. Therefore their ability to rule the 100 mountainstreams. The pointe of the above translation is that if "to rule" is equal to "being lower", then are both a river and a sea able to rule the 100 mountainstreams. Because why doesn't e.g. rain and melting snow rule the 100 mountainstreams? That's only obvious, when the ability of "to rule" is defined as "lower"!

Didn't you miss the rivers in Laozi's parable? The rivers are lower than the 100 mountainstreams but higher than the sea! I do not see this obvious fact mentioned in any traditional translation?

There's only one sea at the coast of China I think that Laozi's preceeding "river and sea" are mentioned with a pointe, that the traditional translators miss? The river and the sea; which one rules the 100 mountainstreams? Regard their ability as the low of the 100 mountainstreams. Therefore their ability to rule the 100 mountainstreams.

Does the old blind man, the one more chinese than the chinese, the one translating TTC like a non-grammatical recipe in a modern chinese cookbook, does he really have the answer? Rethorical questions were in pre-Qin classical chinese made by reverting the subject and the predicate: Which one is the intimateness? A title along with a body? Which one is the overmuchness? A self along with a treasure? Which one is the illness? A gain along with a loss? To lose through a gain and to gain through a loss is according to other chapters connected like relatives! No one is able to guard gold and jade according to another chapter so the overmuchness must be a treasure! That'll say: A title together with a body = The son of Heaven = The ruler = ChiDragon's answer = An illness

Ask him: "Your health or $500"? I think I know the answer if a visit to his doctor costs $250

Yes, that's the way of the traditional translation's "dummy questions". I still think that "A title with a body" is synonymous with "the son of Heaven", that the three questions are intelligent and deep and thus hard to translate.

I'm looking from different angles in order to find the proper english words. E.g. seems this little Zou Zhuan text including 與 interesting to me: 鮮虞曰 (fresh fish - worry - is called) 一與一 (one - along with - first) 誰能懼我 (whom - able to - fear - oneself) That'll say I suspect that 與 preceeds an 'objective meaning' of a character? That'll say: 與身 in chapter 44 line 1 mean 'along with a body' 身與 in chapter 44 line 2 mean 'a self along with' A title along with a body; which one does oneself? A self along with a treasure; which one increases advantageousness? An advantage along with a loss; which one increases jealousy? The love of considerably is surely an expense of greatness and the store of greatly is surely a loss of advantageousness and therefore is to know sufficient harmless knowledge and to stop secures the ability to prolong the lineage. OK ... I do too leave this great chapter

I think that the reversed word has nothing to do with Henrick's 'rhythm', but that line 5 contains the key to answer the line 2 and 3 questions: A body together with a treasure; which one is the overmuchness? A gain together with a loss; which one is the illness? The Guodian version: and the store of greatly is surely a loss of overmuchness. One can store greatly as a treasure in a body, so a treasure must be the overmuchness! The Received version: and the store of overmuchness is surely a loss of greatly. One cannot store overmuchness as a treasure in a body, so a body must be the overmuchness!

The two words in bold are repeated in the fifth line of the Guodian version: A title together with a body; which one is the intimateness? A body together with a treasure; which one is the overmuchness? A gain together with a loss; which one is the illness? The love of considerably is surely an expense of greatness and the store of greatly is surely a loss of overmuchness One of the few differences from the Guodian version to the Received versions is that the two words "overmuchness" and "greatly" in line 5 are reversed, which changes the logical argumentation of the Guodian version to a repetition of the fourth line in the Received version?