lienshan

I agree, that the line beautiful, but it's not a translation of wu wei er wu bu wei, because: Verbs in series connected with "er" (and) had a temporal implication in classical chinese. An example: "I opened the door and walked in" isn't equal to "I walked in and opened the door". Compared to: "He does nothing and leaves nothing undone" is equal to "He leaves nothing undone and does nothing". While "He is going to do nothing and leaves nothing undone" can't be temporal reversed.

My translation is indeed ugly while a sunset is beautiful Lao Tzu compares the being of the sage to the setting of the sun; The light is most beautiful when the sun disappears in the horizon! Explained grammatically: There are two versions of chapter 64 in the Guodian Tao Teh Ching. The oldest have "wang wei" where the youngest have "wu wei". That'll say Lao Tzu began with writing "wang wei" but ended with writing "wu wei". That'll say Lao Tzu must have realized, that "wang wei" is equal to "wu wei": "wang wei" meaning disappearing being is now tense of the verb "wang" to disappear. "wu wei" meaning disappearing being is future tence of the verb "wu" to not have. "wang wei" meaning disappeared being is past tense of the verb "wang" to disappear. "wu wei" meaning disappeared being is now tence of the verb "wu" to not have. That'll say the term "sheng ren wu wei" means the sage is going to have no being/doing/acting alternatively will have no being/doing/acting (my knowledge of english grammar is limited)?

Here's my, litteral as usual, reading of the Guodian chapter 48: 1. Being knowing is the rising of the sun. 2. Being Dao of being is the setting of the sun. 3. Setting its more setting. 4. When zenith the being of disappearing. 5. The being of disappearing and then disappeared not being. Note: The first "Being" of the lines 1 and 2 are the character "zhe" read/translated this way: "wue zhe" means "one who knows" and in my reading "being knowing". "wei dao zhe" means "that which is the dao of being" and in my reading "being Dao of being".

The term have for more than 2300 years been wu wei But in 1993 was the earliest known Tao Teh Ching version found in Guodian. A grave nearby the grave with the bamboo slip bundles has been dated 312 BC Bundle A contains 4 chapters (2, 37, 57, 64) with cang wei instead of wu wei Bundle B contains 1 chapter (48) with two cang wei instead of two wu wei Bundle C contains 1 chapter (64) with wu wei like wu wei of the later versions. Bundle C is by the scholars considered the latest written of the three bundles. That'll say seven examples ... Did Lao Tzu use cang wei everydays and only wu wei on sundays?

According to professor Edwin George Pulleyblank, the classical chinese grammar expert, was the negative "wang" used without an object and the negative "wu" with an object, corresponding to their verbal meanings "to disappear" and "to not have". The term "wang wei" might thus be understood as "not doing" (doing = verb) The term "wu wei" might thus be understood as "no doing" (doing = noun)

What's incorrect concerning the logic of my reading?

Sages, what's their physical being in the world, inhale and exhale. Thereupon: The creation of the world's spoken communication! Common people all concentrate their ears and eyes. Thereupon: All newborn babies are sages! My above reading of the Mawangdui version's last 4 lines is definite not an authoritative reading, but it makes sense to me, that sages use dialogue when communicating their wisdom. That the common people isn't defined as ears and eyes, while sages are defined as mouths, screaming like newborn babies. The last line in details: 聖人 皆孩 之 is equivalent to 皆孩 聖人 聖人 (sages) is the exposed object of the sentence placed in front 皆孩 (all newborn babies) is the subject of the sentence 之 is used grammatically repeating the exposed object placed behind the inplicit verb "are" 聖人皆孩之 can't be translated in any other way, because: 孩 is a noun "children", and 之 meaning "make" would say: sages are all childish 之 being the personal pronoun "their" would have this layout: 聖人之皆孩 之 being the verb "to go to" would say: all newborn babies of sages walk Lao Tzu used this grammar rule to show, that sages placed in front use monoloques. He used exactly the same grammar rule in the Mawangdui line 2 to put sages behind, because that's the correct position of a sage according to his chapter 66.

Two chinese characters of the first line have been inverted. Litterally translated: sages ever have no mind (The Mawangdui B version) sages have no ever mind (The Received version) The adverb ever becomes an adjective meaning independent in the Received version. The Mawangdui B word structure is similar to line 5 in chapter 1 if the word mind is replaced by the word desire. A corresponding Feng-English translation: sages ever mindless

The smallest scholar has the Greatest Superior. Greatest when giving personal praise to him. Greater when being afraid of him. Great when insulting him. Trust lacks and there is a mistrustful comparative form? The superlative meaning of the degrees, the glorious sublime of the job done, is like "myself" being added whenever common people say "I". Consequently, is Great Dao rejected when there is benevolence and righteousness? Are the six relatives not in harmony when there is filial piety and love? Is the family of states hegemonic when there is a head and servants? My commentary: "the family of states" and "the six relatives" are the five hegemon states Qi, Jin, Chu, Qin, Song, and the small dynasty state Zhou.

I think that my answer is in accordance with Steve's translation! A sage reflects the true nature of humanity and share with us in his way. Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu reflect the true nature of humanity differently, but they do both share ... that's to me sagely! Steve's translation inspired me to remember this Eckhart Tolle quote: "I cannot tell you anything, that you do not already know, but I can tell you something, that you might have forgotten"

Chuang Tzu had no thoughts of his own, because he shared them with us.

I am good to people who are good. I am also good to people who are not good. Because Virtue is goodness. I have faith in people who are faithful. I also have faith in people who are not faithful. Because Virtue is faithfulness. Here's my opinion: Is benevolence good? Is filial piety faithful? So a sage sees a criminal, Confucius, and trusts Confucius because he understands the true nature of the criminal Confucius, that the acts alone do not define Confucius, but that it goes deeper than that, it involves Confucius's place within the whole, so he can trust Confucius, because he knows Confucius for what he is, Confucius cannot betray him. He is kind to all because he knows that to do otherwise is not beneficial. I read the passage as saying: A sage is good and faithful. The confucian similarity: Do not do to others what you do not want done to yourself.

2. (亓) 以 百 姓 (之) 心 為 (之) 心 He takes the mind of the common people as his mind. (Henricks translation of the Received version) (亓) meaning "He" is omitted (之) meaning "their" and "his" are omitted 2. (亓) 以 百 姓 之 心 為 (之) 心 (The Mawangdui version with a 之 not omitted) An exposured object is placed in front and is repeated by a 之 character, which was placed behind the verb in warring states time. The phrase "the mind of the common people" has no verb, so the 之 is placed where a "pronoun" 之 is omitted by rule. Sorry, that I am so detailed, but I think that the meaning is important: It describes a mutual relationship between the common people and the sage. The position of a sage is behind in the sentence, as described in chapter 66 It's correct, that "He takes the mind of the common people as his mind." But the exposured omitted (亓) "they" tells that the primary is: They take his mind as the mind of the common people. Hard to translate as a one-liner, but a "too" might work? The sage has no independent thoughts. He takes the mind of the common people as his mind too.

It's the 以 character, that omits the 之 character according to classical chinese grammar. Please show us one single example similar to the line discussed with a preceeding 以 character.

Please show us a similar example from another classic (pre-Qin) text

The problem is, that line 2 of the Received version is scholarly perfect edited: 2. 以 百 姓 (之) 心 為 (之) 心 (the two 之 characters are grammatically correct omitted) 2. He takes common people their thoughts as his thoughts. (litterally translated) The grammar formula is 以 X 為 Y = to take X as Y What has been scholarly edited can be read in line 2 of the Mawangdui version: 2. 以 百 姓 之 心 為 (之) 心 (only one of 之 characters is grammatically correct omitted) That's a unique way to reverse the formula 以 X 為 Y into 以 Y 為 X 2. Common people take his thoughts as their thoughts. I think, that you prefer that translation to my first. But let's see, if others have objections?

All three translations neglect, that the term "yi wei" means "to think", because the characters "yi" and "wei" are seperated in the second line, which is an unusual sentence construction making the line readable: The sage has no independent thoughts. He thinks the thoughts of common people's thoughts. That'll say, it's not the way of thinking, that makes a sage a sage!

No. This line is able to stand alone. It's the definition of the phrase "wang wei" or "wu wei"! "wang" is like "wu" a negative (no, not) but had too an active verbal function in classical chinese. That's why the Guodian line is simple to translate and understand without further explanation. The later development from "wang wei" to "wu wei" is much more complicated to understand, because the two verbal meanings of "wu", "to not have" and "to not exist" are both passive. I think, that "wu" in the first place of the line place should be read as the verb "to not have", while "wu" in the last place of the line should be read as the verb "to not exist": Not having is acting; not existing is not acting. (The Received TTC versions) Disappearing is acting; disappeared is not acting. (The Guodian TTC version) "wu bu wei" can be understood as both before and after "wu wei". "wang bu wei" is only after "wang wei" as I read/translate the line.

The last line of the Guodian chapter 48 translated: Disappearing is acting; disappeared is not acting.

The three corrections in bold are mine: The sage does not distinguish between himself and the world; The needs of other people are as his own. He is good to those who are good; He is also good to those who are not good, which is the goodness of Teh. He trusts those who are trustworthy; He also trusts those who are not trustworthy, which is the trustworthiness of Teh. The sage unites, that's his influence everywhere. And his mind is the world's mind. So he nurtures the worlds of others As a mother does her children. The three are "subordinate noun clauses" according to the Mawangdui Tao Teh Ching, where they are nominated as so by a grammatical "ye" character.

Hanfeizi 280-233 BC quotes Shen Dao: "It is on this basis that I know that the strategic advantage (shi) of position is enough to rely on, and that wisdom and worthiness are not worth admiring. Though one's bow is weak, if one shots from a great high, one's arrow will fly swifter than the wind. Though you are yourself unworthy, your orders are carried out due to the people's duty to assist you." Lao Tzu is too quoting Shen Dao in the lines 1 and 3 of the Guodian chapter 19: Terminate wisdom, abandon worthiness. Terminate expertice, abandon advantageousness. Shen Dao was engaged as a teacher during the reign of Xuanwang 342-324 BC The Guodian Tao Te Ching was burried 312 BC That'll say Lao Zhu was alive writing chapter 19 between 342 BC and 312 BC

I think, that it's the word "terminate" that have two meanings! To Shen Dao "terminate" is equivalent to "throw away" because worthless. To Lao Tzu "terminate" is equivalent to "give away" because valueable. The difference between Shen Dao's and Lao Tzu's preferred strategical position: Evaporation = Military Service and Taxes 100 Mountainstreams = The Supervisors The River = The Ruler The Sea = The People Evaporation = Wisdom and Expertice 100 Mountainstreams = The People The River = The Ruler The Sea = The Supervisors (I've used Lao Tzu's "watercycle" parable in his chapter 66)

Dear friend, how do you know that?

Your Bruce Lee quote sounds reasonable to me if it indicates: Only one having wisdom is able to terminate wisdom. Only one having expertice is able to terminate expertice.

You are insulting me! "terminating wisdon and expertise" was not my suggestion, but me quoting Lao Tzu, who was quoting Shen Dao! Or are You flattering me? Quoting Shen Dao quoting Lao Tzu?