lienshan

The socalled Guodian Tao Te Ching is a first hand copy of max one third of Laozi's original manuscript to Tao Te Ching. It's therefore by nature of mixed quality. Some finished chapters are superior to the corresponding chapters of the Received version while other unfinished chapters are under construction. There was for example two versions of chapter 64 in his manuscript; the oldest is very similar to the chapter 64 of the Received version. Here is a passage from his later written chapter 64: Acting goes to that which is lost goes to hold in hand goes to the one who lets go of it. Holy men no acting therefore no losing. No holding in hand therefore no letting go. 為 之者敗 之執 之者失之 聖人無為故無敗也 無執故無失也 The first 為 has the position of a noun and is therefore a gerund. The two last sentences are marked as noun clauses by 也 characters. 無為 (wu wei), 無敗, 無執 and 無失 are therefore all negative gerunds.

I know that 矣 at the end of the first sentence marks the sentence as a rethorical question: The second line explained in the language of the TaoBum board: Flowing Hands is a holy man ( 聖人 read as an adjective + a noun ) His three immortals are sages ( 聖人 read as compound characters ) The going to the toilet (a gerund) of Flowing Hands is humanly. The no going to the toilet (a negative gerund) of his three immortals is not humanly.

WU WEI "in classical Chinese it is perfectly alright grammatically for a sentence to leave a word ambiguous as to whether it is being used as a noun or a verb but in vernacular Chinese and in English grammar that ambiguity is not allowed" That's simply not true with regard to the Tao Te Ching written in the pre-Qin classical chinese. I know, that you cannot read the exavacated versions because you don't know the ancient grammar. Pick one character, that is "ambiguous as to whether it is being used as a noun or a verb" to you. You have one shot in the gun. I'll tell you whether the character a noun or a verb and why

The acting of men ..... is a gerund The no acting of sages ..... is a negative gerund The acting of sages ..... is nonsense according to Laozi's following lines: Being careful in the end as well as in the beginning and then no dropping accident? Independently from them both fullfilled, the dropping of humanity drops him. He refers to the two characters 聖人 "holy men" which as compound characters mean "sages". 慎終若始則無敗事矣 人之敗也恒於其且成也敗之

Is it a tao or taoing and not independently Tao? Is it a noun or a verb and not the independent name? The beginning of everything is a gerund. The mother of everything is a common noun. As a consequence: It is an independent frigidity considering its virtue. She is an independent mistress considering her offsprings. They are a pair of the same genesis. They are different parts of speech having the same meaning. Darkening dark and The gate of the numerous virtuous. The philosophical arguement: "Darkening dark" refers to the HengXian cosmology: The center exists first, then so does the outer; The mother of everything exists first, then so does the ??? There is no opposite, so it is prooved, that The mother of everything is independent. "The gate of the numerous virtuous" refers to TaiYiShengShui cosmology: The Great One gave birth to water. The Great One and water aren't opposites, so it is proved, that The beginning of everything is independent. That'll say using the adjective independent is creating a duality! 恆道 must thus be read as independently Tao and not as the independent Tao

I think the modern term is 专名 meaning "a proper name" Are you sure? Could 恆名 be translated "a proper name"

Is it possible that 恆名 could mean "a proper name" in pre-Qin classical chinese? The modern term is 专有名词 according to the MDGB dictionary.

You have convinced me. This HengXian passage is what Laozi's in the beginning of everything referred to: 先有中，焉有外。先有小，焉有大。 先有柔，焉有剛。先有圓，焉有方。 先有晦，焉有明。先有短，焉有長。 The center exists first, then so does the outer; the small exists first, then so does the big; the soft exist first, then so does the solid; the round exists first, then so does the square; the dark exists first, then so does the bright; the short exist first, then so does the long. And 先有晦，焉有明。the dark exists first, then so does the bright; is what his darkening dark referred to.

I think that Laozi dealt with the School of Names here in chapter 1 The founder Deng Xi invented the argumentation of the two possibilities liang ke zhi shuo 兩可之說 A man had stolen the corpse of a another persons's father and claimed a ransom. Deng Xi, as a judge, appeased the robber that the son of the dead would not buy back another body, and eased the son of the dead that nobody else would buy the corpse. The School of Names divided later on into two directions: The first direction was represented by Hui Shi. He found out that everything on earth is composed of two related opposites that on the one hand contradict each other but on the other hand belong together. The common ground of all things is much stronger than its differences. This direction is what Laozi nicknamed The mother of everything. The second direction was represented by Gongsun Long. He found out that designations and real objects have actually nothing to do with each other but are only connected in a process of common concepts of thinking and only within this framework. This direction is what Laozi nicknamed In the beginning of everything.

The dimensionless cannot be accumulated, its size is a thousand miles.

I've changed the two first lines into propositional statements. 恆 in line 2 must be the adjective changeless because 名 is read as the noun: a name 恆 in line 1 must be the adverb changelessly because a name itself isn't a noun. Is it a tao or to tao and not changelessly tao? Is it a noun or a verb and not a changeless name? In the beginning of everything isn't a noun. The mother of everything is a noun. As a consequence: It is changelessly desireless with regard to its virtue. She is a changeless desirer with regard to her offsprings. They are a pair of the same genesis. They are different parts of speech having the same meaning. Darkening dark and The gate of the numerous virtuous.

In the beginning of everything isn't a name. The mother of everything is a name. As a consequence: It is changelessly desireless with regard to its virtue. She is a changeless desirer with regard to her offsprings. 恆無欲 explained: 無欲 isn't a name (a noun) which marks 恆 as an adverb: changelessly 恆有欲 explained: 有欲 is a name (a noun) which marks 恆 as an adjective: changeless 恆 heng is the name of the I Ching hexagram 32 and the ancient meaning of the character is wellknown. Persevering and Duration are the most common translations into english. My pick Changeless fits into the context here.

The meaning of 恆 heng (and 常 chang) is constant/constantly; in different nuances. The problem is not how to translate the character, but to identify whether it's an adjective (constant) or an adverb (constantly)? It depends probably on the following character. If that's a "wu ming 無名" character then heng is an adverb, and if that's a "you ming 有名" character then heng is an adjective. But what part of speech is 道 tao?

That's okey with me; we don't have to agree What interests me at the moment is how to read the line 1 and 2 terms 恆道 and 恆名 always the tao / always the name or the eternal tao / the eternal name Both ways of reading are legal seen from a grammatical point of view; maybe that's the pointe?

The teacher in the Guodian grave was burried 312 BC together with his own private library which was custom at that time. His library came into existence thus: He dictated various philosophical books from the royal library in Ying, the capitol of Chu, and his pupils brushed what he read aloud on bamboo slips training how to write. The teacher kept the bamboo slips. These had no value seen with the eyes of the children, but had great value seen with the eyes of a poor teacher interested in philosophy. He didn't read aloud from the Tao Te Ching but from Laozi's manuscript to Tao Te Ching! Some chapters were finished and others were under construction. The manuscript can be dated as written around the middle of the 4th century BC, when the character 亡 was replaced by the character 無 in philosophical writings, according to Pulleyblank, which makes Laozi a contemporary to both Shen Buhai and Shen Dao.

You are in my opinion both rigth and wrong: The word tao is ofcourse an idea in the same way as manitou's chair is an idea. But what the word tao means isn't an idea because nobody can model matter into its form.

The Topmost Tao is greater than The Ultimate Tao

That's an idea.

The character 名 ming is both a noun (a name) and a verb (to name). Modern english has eigth parts of speech while pre-Qin classical chinese had only two: nouns (names) and not nouns (not names) = you ming 有名 and wu ming 無名 A noun / name is for example "the mother of everything" A not noun / not name is for example "in the beginning of everything" The character 始 shi was in pre-Qin classical chinese a verb: to begin It became a time-term when followed by a 也 ye as in the Mawangdui version. I've choosen to use the biblic term "in the beginning" to express the not noun time aspect. The main pointe of the Mawangdui chapter 1 version is, that tao is neither creating nor the creator. That'll say neither a not noun nor a noun. That'll say the statement of the first line is false and Laozi is by logic quoting somebody else

It's a tao or to tao; it isn't always the tao. It's a name or to name; it isn't always the name. In the beginning of everything isn't a name. The mother of everything is a name. As a consequence: It is always desireless with regard to its virtue. She is always desiring with regard to her offsprings. It's a pair of the same origin. They are different parts of speech having the same meaning. Darkening dark and The gate of the numerous virtuous. Commentaries: In the beginning of everything means for example in the beginning of dark. Darkening dark is a term showing Laozi's use of irony! The gate of the numerous virtuous is in the same way to be read as an ironic term. The mother of everything, litterally understood, makes all other mothers redundant.

"the secret of life" is what swindlers sell (sorry, if you fell personally offended, but that's my answer if anybody asked me that question) Your chapter 1 miao 妙 is translated "The Subtle Underlying Beauty (of life)" Your chapter 27 miao 妙 is translated "the secret of life" I think that the simple word "virtue" is what the author had in mind when brushing 妙 on the bamboo slip. 女 means "breasts/woman" and 少 means "little/small" and together is "an innocent girl" a nearby reading.

. You have convinced me, Harmonious The character Miao must have had the meaning virtue/virtuous/virtuously/virtuousness when Laozi was writing. The chapter 27 term is either the virtue of necessity or the necessity of virtue The mother of everything is by logic not virtuous. Everything at the beginning / the beginning of heaven and earth are both terms expressing virtuousness.

Miao occurs in one more chapter; in the last line of chapter 27: 是謂要妙 in the Received version: This is called the necessary mystery / the mystery of necessity 是胃眇要 in the Mawangdui version: This is called the mysterious necessity / the necessity of mystery It looks as if the 妙 Miao is a noun while the 眇 Miao is an adjective / or are they both nouns? It makes me remember a wellknown english phrase: to make a virtue of necessity

Miao 妙 (mysterious/subtle/inquisite) is the character in the Received version. Miao 眇 (blind in one eye/miniscule) is the character in the Mawangdui version. Jiao 徼 (frontier/border/patrol) is the contrasting character in the Received version. suo Jiao 所噭 (that which shout) are the contrasting characters in the Mawangdui version. I read Miao as describing the hole of a gate and Jiao/suo Jiao as describing the physical gate.

I'm not ready to look at chapter 28 because I still struggle with reading the last lines of chapter 1 your vocabulary (又repeating 玄mystery) isn't like the standard (又 additional/more 玄 mysterious/dark) "mysterious becoming more mysterious" or "darkening dark" are the two primary choices. I prefer the last choise, because that's simply what I see when looking into a gate. Your "All doors" is a grammatical incorrect translation. The term to translate is (眾 multitude/crowd 妙 mystery/inner beauty) so speaking your language: The gate of all inner beauties.