lienshan

Is Marblehead's "I retired" equivalent to wu wei? Is Marblehead's sleeping the day away doing nothing equivalent to wu wei? Let's hear, what Lao Tzu has to say about that subject: There are two versions of chapter 64 in the Guodian Tao Teh Ching. The A version written by a young, immature but still deep Lao Tzu. The C version editted by an old, mature and now deep deep Lao Tzu. 64b A line 1: He who is will lose it. 64b A line 2: He who holds will lose it. 64b A line 3: So the sage will lose doing it. 64b A line 4: Therefore disappear to lose not lost. 64b C line 1: He who is will lose it. 64b C line 2: He who holds will lose it. 64b C line 3: The sage has no being. 64b C line 4: Therefore no loss no lose. The important difference between the two versions occurs in line 3; technically: 64b A line 3: 是以聖人亡為 (the 以 omits 之 "it" and 為 is thus the verbal "to do it") 64b C line 3: 聖人無為 (without a omitted 之 is 為 the verb "to be") That "The sage has no being" means that "sage" is a name not a being. The one named "sage" is a being. Is Marblehead named "sage"?

I think that Lao Tzu invented the term 無為 (verb 無 + 為) and its 4 possible meanings: 無之為也 (the verb "to not have" + the verb "to do") = has not done it 無之為 (the verb "to not have" + the noun "doing") = has no doing 無為也 (the verb "to not have" + the verb "to be") = has not been 無為 (the verb "to not have" + the noun "being") = has no being 為 means "to do" or "doing" if the pronoun 之 (his, its, their) is before 為 為 means "to be" or "being" if the pronoun 之 (his, its, their) is after 為 Yes, it's boring classical chinese grammar, but he used it to prove philosophical pointes. That'll say the term 無為 wu wei had originally four meanings depending of the other characters, because the other characters nomilized 為 wei as either "to do, doing" or "to be, being". The term 無為 wu wei must therefore be read in a context, because it's alone a duality!! EDIT: The term wu ming (the first two characters of chapter 1, line 3) is the same story: wu means "to not have" ming means either "to name, a name" telling what the subject is or ming means "to title, a title" telling what the subject does More characters are here too needed in order to discriminate "to be" and "to do".

My version: Lao Tzu's original manuscipt was kept in the library of Changsha, the capitol of a southern Chu state too named Changsha. The man in the nearby Guodian grave was a teacher. He tought new scribes in the library how to scribe. He read aloud from bamboo slips kept in the library and corrected afterwards, what the new scribes had brushed on their bamboo slips. Some of these dictates were found in his home and put into his grave together with his own bamboo slips books, when he died 312 BC. The Qin state defeated the Shu state in 278 BC and Lao Tzu' original manuscript was brought back to the Qin state, where Qin scholars editted Lao Tzu's original manuscript into a book of 81 chapters. Lao Tzu had earlier lived and worked in Qin, but preferred to move, when the legalist Shen Dao was engaged by Duke Xiao...

You did a mistake, Twinner DDJ 1 and the Guodian chapter 1 are two different texts. You have made it impossible to discuss something very important due to some rules Well, here's the pointe of the Guodian chapter 1 read as one single text: The knowledge of abandon severs distinction, and the people will benefit a hundredfold. The craftsmanship of abandon severs profit, and there will be no robbers and swindlers. The hypocrisy of abandon severs humbug, and the people will return to youngest children. The change of "abandon" from being a verb to be a noun, change the three orders inte three advices! (the changed reading can be translated better than above) But the pointe is only obvious when reading the socalled "chapters 19, 66, 46" as one single text! (the pointe is in the last line of chapter 46) Once again: The Guodian chapter One is an original uneditted Lao Tzu text!

When he said: "There's no greater misfortune than not knowing when enough." he meant: "There's no greater misfortune than not ignoring when enough." My first serve was easy to return; here's the difficult second serve: Lao Tzu's arguement against the three declarations is in my translation a question: Suppose a lack of judgement and one in a subordinate position orders those three declarations? What happens, if an employe order those three declarations to e.g. the Boss? Is doing so wise?

My first serve: At the beginning: "Abandon knowledge" At the end: "There's no greater misfortune than not knowing when enough" How can anyone know when enough, if knowledge is abandoned? Either is Lao Tzu contradicting himself or quoting somebody else at the beginning.

It's one single text that later became chapter 19 + chapter 66 + chapter 46 in Tao Teh Ching. Why not enjoy the original manuscript? It's unedited Lao Tzu speaking!

I've underlined knowledge in the last line, because Lao Tzu underlined the character! He did so in order to point at the character knowledge in the first line (in the Shen Dao quote). It was impossible to underline when writing on narrow bamboo slips so classical chinese had this feature: What's underlined was placed in the front of the line and a 之 told where the underlined belonged. That'll say: written 知足之為足 must be read 足知為足 ( 之為 means the verb to do while 為 means the verb to be ) knowledge - sufficient - its - to do - enough (are the way most translators read the line) sufficient - knowledge - to be - enough (are the way translators knowing read the line)

The Guodian chapter One Abandon knowledge, sever distinction, and the people will benefit a hundredfold. Abandon craftsmanship, sever profit, and there will be no robbers and swindlers. Abandon hypocrisy, sever humbug, and the people will return to youngest children. Suppose a lack of judgement and one in a subordinate position orders those three declarations? To prefer uncolored of the inspected uncolored is the reduced desire of few grain still on stalks! The River and the Sea; which one of them is the King of the 100 mountainstreams? Consider the ability as the low of the 100 mountainstreams. Therefore Their ability to be the King of the 100 mountainstreams: That the people is foremost, is the attitude of the Sage therewith humble presence. That the people is above, is his attitude therewith lowly speech. That the people is highest, what doesn't denigrate the people, is his point of view. That the people is in the front, what doesn't override the people, is his point of view. The music of the world advances and isn't rejected, because he doesn't contend. Therefore the inability to engage in the contention of the world. 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! `

Losing a fight by walking away from a fool; what's the difference? To me there is no difference but in the brain, so how can "winning a fight" be "doing"? "winning a fight" has no being!

I have learned the hard way to respect your intuition, Marblehead Your feedback to us doing translations is really a great help The last section of chapter 19 is a mystery Nearly all translators treat the eight characters this way: 視素 and 保樸 and 少私 and 寡欲 but doing so is only grammatically correct with a nineth character 而 where the last "and" is the series (Mawangdui B has 而 in that position) The alternative is to translate the eight characters as an usual sentence: 保樸 of 視素 is 寡欲 of 少私 The preferred uncolored of the inspected uncolored is the reduced desire of few grain still on stalks. 視 look, see, inspect 素 white fine silk, uncolored 保 protect, take care of, prefer 樸 root of tree, uncolored 少 less, not many, few 私 private, grain still on stalk 寡 less, few, reduced 欲 desire Did Lao Tzu, the brilliant author and perfectionist, not know his grammar? My approach to translating Lao Tsu is, that I can be wrong but he did no mistakes!

You are both saying the same, yet different words, in the way I read your posts, and I do in fact not disagree, because an existent sage would be unnatural according to how I understand Lao Tzu. Nobody are born sages. What naturally exist are sagely persons. That's how I understand "sheng ren wu wei" "sages have no being".

無 wu is either a negative not/no or a verb to not have/to have no 為 wei is either a noun doing or a noun being or a verb to do or a verb to be There was in classical chinese thus 2 x 4 = 8 ways to express 無為 wu wei: To express the 4 negation terms were e.g. used 故 and 是以 both meaning "therefore". 以 omits the pronoun 之 which is between the negative and its subject by rule. 之 before 為 defined 為 as to do/doing and 之 after 為 defined 為 as to be/being. 也 was a grammatical particle used to nomilize noun or verb clauses. 1: 是以無為 (negative - (之) - verb) = to not do 2: 是以無為也 (negative - (之) - verb) = no doing 3: 故無為 (negative - verb) = to not be 4: 故無為也 (negative - noun) = no being 5: 無之為也 (verb - verb) = has not done it 6: 無之為 (verb - noun) = has no doing 7: 無為也 (verb - verb) = has not been 8: 無為 (verb - noun) = has no being The name (the title) sage has no being. I suppose that sagely is doing? How can I discriminate two persons sleeping in a bed, a woman and a sage?

A quote does always leave something out, but I begin with the most important: While Tao too is its character, is early dawn its name, because Tao accompanies, what's its duty, surely rely on its name. Old duty done and itself prolonged. What's the accompany duty of the sage also rely on its name. Old duty done and himself not boned. Then I read the name of Tao being "early dawn" into my own chapter 48 translation: Does the teaching of daily flood make the name Tao set the sun? It sets after "early dawn" its farther setting. It sets down after "early dawn" its job done. It's job done before "early dawn" its not undone. I think that Lao Tzu read Tai Yi Sheng Shui with his own eyes and didn't agree!

I know, so here is the Guodian 48 and the relevant "Great One" lines translated: The teaching is daily magnified. Does it make Dao set the sun? It sets after its farther setting. It sets down after its job done. It is job done before its not undone. While Tao too is its character, is early dawn its name, because Tao accompanies, what's its duty, surely rely on its name. Old duty done and itself prolonged. What's the accompany duty of the sage also rely on its name. Old duty done and himself not boned. 道亦其字也青昏其名 以道從事者必托其名 古事成而身長 聖人之從事也亦托其名 古功成而身不剔 Hope the characters are visible to them that want to check my translation?

Well, let's check if the Guodian chapter 48 relates to 大一生水 (the Great One generates water) http://www.tao-te-king.org/taiyi_shengshui.htm The most interesting are the slips 9, 10-12 at the bottom of the page. 益 occur twice on slip 9 translated "benefit"; but "increase" in Henricks chapter 48 translation. 道 and 名 "Tao and name" is the main subject of the slips 10-12 道者 is in my translation "Tao" (the name Tao) because 者 can nomilize a character as a Name.

OK ... but check out the logic of the "after" and "before" lines. I'm still not 100% sure regarding the last line. Or more specific: the "Great One" 太一 doctrine known from a text of the teaching: "the Great One generates water" 太一生水 (A script attached to the Guodian Tao Teh Ching bundle C) Laozi had a choice and picked the character 益 "yi" as the last character of line 1. This character meant according to Shuo Wen: owerflowing - the thought of a container with water so my "magnified" = 益 is maybe not the right pick?

I read the Guodian chapter 48 as two questions with two answers: Does the wise arise the sun? It sets after his farther setting. Does he make Dao set the sun? It sets down after his job done. It's job done before his not undone. By the way, one of the reasons why I am so focused on translating this brilliant written chapter 100% correct is, that the third line corresponds to the nineth line of Tao Teh Ching chapter one, when the character 損 "to set" is replaced by the character 玄 "to darken" ("mystery" in your vocabulary). It might help reading the chapter one line correct?

The chinese character 日 in line 1 and 2 means "the sun" so why not? I've made some corrections due to logic: The wise isn't the sun and he can't order Dao! What looks strange is the chinese order of the characters "sun to rise" and "sun to set" (noun before verb). They can't be "noun noun" or "verb verb" because the lines would if so end with a 也 character similar to line 4. Rhetorical questions can according to Pulleyblank be indicated by the use of reversed order of characters, so: Does the wise arise the sun? Does he make Dao set the sun? It sets after his farther setting. It sets down after his job done. It's job done before his not undone. I've inserted "before" and "after" instead of "and" due to their temporal meaning.

Thanks for your feedback; here's instead a beauty: The Guodian chapter 48 The wise is the rising of the sun. He lets Tao set the sun. Setting and his farther setting. Down to and his job done. Job done and his not undone. It's important to understand the three "and"s when reading my translation. The "and" of line 5 is too a chinese character "er". "er" makes "Job done" temporally preceede "his not undone". The "and"s of line 3 and 4 are omitted characters in the chinese text, because the first phrases doesn't temporally preceede the last phrases.

The corresponding chinese characters are: 道生之 德畜之 物形之 勢成之 The 之 character is treated as a pronoun "they" by the translators, but there's no-one to refer to? 之 had many meanings in classical chinese e.g. being the coverb "to make" in passive constructions: Tao makes living. Virtue makes nourishing. Matter makes formed. Environment makes shaped. The above must be read in a passive sense like "a smile makes beautiful".

"De" is to me a human-to-human relationship; inspired by reading the chapters 49 and 66: The people are like the hundred mountainstreams. The sage is both the river and the sea; symbolizing "De" and "Dao". The people is through "De" in connection with the sage. (mountainstreams <=> river) The humble presence and lowly speech of the sage is "De". The goodness and the faithfulness of the sage is "De".

I think that Legge translates the line as explained by the professor ("No" = "lost"). I think that I have given a reasonable explanation of how 亡 wang and 無 are interchangeable. The two last lines of the Guodian chapter 48 viewed grammatically: 4th line 以至亡為也 5th line 亡為而亡不為 也 marks the 4th line as a subordinate (to the 3th line) clause. 以至 is a special (and therewith onwards to) term, similar to 以下 (and therewith downwards to) 而 connects (and) two verbal phrases; the first phrase is temporally preceeding the last phrase. Most translators read 為 as meaning "making/doing", but Pulleyblank writes about 為 as "being": "Apart from the verbless noun predicate construction, the verb wei 為 "make, do" can be used as a copula in the sense of "to be". A formal difference between 為 "make, do" and 為 "be" is that an interrogative pronoun must precede the former as its object by the general rule for such pronouns with transitive verbs, while an interrogative pronoun follows the latter as its subjective complement." 亡為 means thus "disappearing being" = is going to have no being 亡不為 means thus "disappeared not being" = comes into being (a double negative = a positive) The sun is setting and becomes visibly (the first phase is temporal preceeding the last phase) I read Tao Teh Ching my way; Others read Tao Teh Ching their way; I can't see the problem. PS. But wei 為 in line 2 phrase 為道者 (one who does Dao) is the verb "make, do". 者 stands for the inplicit subject and interrogative pronoun of the verb.

Well, not clinging to the chinese characters is my explanation: "the one who knows" is just like the rising sun; people are blinded when looking. Therefore do sages copy the setting sun half below the horizon enlightening people. This specific way of copying nature when promoting Dao is called "wu wei".