lienshan

妙 miao occurs too in the last line so let's see. Here's how I read the end of Mawangdui version: 兩者同出異名同謂 It's a pair of the same origin, different parts of speech and the same meaning. 玄之又玄眾妙之門 Darkening dark and the gate of all mysteries. The majority translates 異名 as "different names" but this doesn't match with the second line: 名可名也非恆名也 It's a name or to name. It isn't always the name.

There were two standard phrases in pre-Qin classical chinese: 無 以 to not have whereby which 有 以 to have whereby which The 也 characters in between in the Mawangdui version exclude to read the lines this way. That'll say the desire occurs when observing the manifestations and doesn't occur when observing the mysteries. I'm not familiar with the Han classical chinese, the language of the Received version, but reading your translation I get the impression, that sages only observe the mysteries and everybody else only observe the manifestations?

The two lines 5 and 6 are preceeded by the character 故 "therefore". That'll say they are by logic the consequences of the lines 1 to 4 statements. The grammatical structure of the lines 5 and 6 is in the Mawangdui version marked by two 也 ye characters: 常無欲 也 以觀其妙 常有欲 也 以觀其徼 The first three characters in the two lines are marked as a subject phrase to the verb 觀 "to observe". That'll say the first three characters describe a person who is observing either mysteries or manifestations.

亡 I remembered wrong; the character is named wang and not cang

I didn't see that you quoted a translation and I'm pleased to see your own translation of the Received version Line 4 is no problem: 有名萬物之母。 yŏu míng wàn wù zhī mŭ. There is the name the mother of everything. 有 yŏu preceeding a sentence, as in chapter 25, means There is / There was 無 wú preceeding line 4 is therefore meant to be read as There isn't / There wasn't Laozi wrote Tao Te Ching while the negotiation character wú became popular replacing cang. That's why there are two versions of chapter 64 in the Guodian version; one with cang wei and one with wu wei. wu meaning "There isn't" became not a standard, but there was still no standard, when Laozi wrote his chapter 1. 無名天地之始 wú míng tiān dì zhī shĭ, There isn't the name the beginning of heaven and earth. Is tao both "the beginning of heaven and earth" and "the mother of everything"? If so then tao isn't a name and is a name. That's how I understand his pointe!

I've had no objection, if we were talking the Received version, but your translation of the lines 3 and 4 is of the Mawangdui version, because you in line 3 use the original term "myriad things" instead of the later editted term "heaven and earth" Wu names the beginning of the myriad things; Yu names the mother of the myriad things. The shi (to begin) character followed by an ye character was pre-Qin equal to the timephase: at the beginning Your translation is therefore incorrect. Nobody are naming at the beginning. Everybody are naming Mum. mu followed by a ye character marks mu as a personal name; the personal name of a mother is Mum in english. My english is bad, sorry, I can't produce a real translation, but the above indicates how I read Laozi's arguement.

The character ke (maybe/or) did always mark the following character as a verb in pre-Qin classical chinese. The first three characters of chapter 1 are: tao ke tao That'll say the second tao must be read/translated as a verb and the way of The Way is a noun.

http://books.google.dk/books/about/Outline_of_Classical_Chinese_Grammar.html?id=viWF1UZqKC8C&redir_esc=y The above is a MUST if you want to read e.g. the Guodian and the Mawangdui Tao Te Ching versions. Pulleyblank is the one who knows best how the very important ye character was used grammatically in pre-Qin classical chinese. The ye character declined to be an exclamatory marker in Han-times but was earlier used in many ways. An example from the Mawangdui Tao Te Ching chapter one line one: tao ke tao ye fei heng tao ye Pulleyblank explains,that X ye fei Y ye was a standard formula meaning: it's X it isn't Y Pulleyblank explains too, that ke (maybe/or) always marks the following character as being a verb!

It's a walk or walking. It's not always a walk. That's how I read and translate the opening line of the exavacated Mawangdui chapter one versions. The author wants to point out that the character tao is both a noun and a verb!

Tao, emptied and made useful, has not to be filled. I read the truth of the above Mawangdui line 1 version this way: Try model a lump of clay into a cup; the form makes the clay useful, because the clay is made empty.

道沖而用之有弗盈也 is the oldest (Mawangdui version of chapter 4 line 1 You know modern Han-dynasty and foreward chinese, but are unable to read classical pre-Han chinese. So I'll explain to you how to read the line above: The 也 character signals in this case a subordinate verb clause; I show you with commas: 道 , 沖而用之 , 有弗盈 The main clause is simple: Tao, .... , has not to be filled. The subordinate clause means: when emtied and being used A few details: 用之 ... 之 after a verb 用 was in classical used to create an adverbial phrase; litteral translated 'made usefull' 有弗盈 ... the negative 弗 marks 盈 as an objective verb; litteral translated 'has not its filling' The 'its' comes from an by regular rule omitted 之 character after the negative 弗

The character occurs in the Guodian Tao Te Ching version of chapter 45 where Laozi made a lot of contrasts; that'll say the character 盈 in pre-Qin classical chinese meant the opposite of the character 沖 沖 meant according to Nina Correa: rinse with water, make empty (that which is constantly being emptied) 盈 should thus have meant: make full (that which is constantly being filled)

What reconciles yin and yang in Taoism is everything! Laozi wrote in chapter 42: Everything carries yin on the back and embraces yang. That'll say the trinity of everything, yin and yang. That'll say Laozi rejected the yin and yang theory with a simple oneliner! Let's try to challenge his arguement with this oneliner: Nothing carries yin on the back and embraces yang. What reconciles yin and yang of nothing?

That the translations of Tao Te Ching into english are confusing is a disadvantage. The Guodian Tao Te Ching version copied before 312 BC in the original classical chinese isn't confusing! It isn't the text that is confusing ... it is the translators who are confused

You're according to your profile living in Beijing Taoism originated in the modern Hubei province 650 miles/1000 kilometers to the south of Beijing It's the same if I living here in Copenhagen said: that it's a great adventure living here in the origin of the french revolution

A pair of shoes Probably too dualistic an answer to most onenessfreaks in here

How many masters are needed to make a forum awesome

We do not limit to Germans! We limit to whole Western Culture:

Esspecially not this blind old man's socalled 'native (yellowskinned) Tao Te Ching translation'

Your "You Wei" is not Laozi's complement to "Wu Wei" according to this chapter 48 passage: 損之又損 以至於無為 無為而無不為 They decrease and decrease, until they reach the point where they do nothing at all. They do nothing, yet there is nothing left undone. (Henricks) Laozi's complement to "Wu Wei" (無為) is "Wu Bu Wei" (無不為)

It's brushed on the slips 10-12 in this link: http://www.tao-te-king.org/taiyi_shengshui.htm That translator prefers 'task' to 'duty' and 'suffers no harm' to 'not boned'. What's expressed in these lines is very early 'pre-Laozi' taoism!

The monk was conversating with the questioner and was thus doing something. That's the problem with 'doing nothing': we are when living always doing something e.g. respirating. I do often read Laozi as opposed to passages of the earliest known 'taoist' text Ta Yi Sheng Shui e.g. Below the soil is similar to the word earth. Above the air is similar to the word heaven. Dao is also its character; Early Dawn is its name. Why Dao follows what's duty surely rely on its name. Therefore is the duty completed and itself prolonged. That the sage follows duty does also rely on its name. Therefore is the merit completed and himself not boned. That'll say I understand wu wei as opposed to the duty of dao and the sage.

Wei meant doing or being or activity or existence in classical pre-Qin chinese. There were four different negatives used to define which one: Bu or Fu or Wu or Fei Wu marks thus Wei as a subjective noun: "to have no activity". (bu and fu marked verbs, wu and fei nouns, bu and wu subjective, fu and fei objective) This very strange grammar dates back to the earliest development of the written chinese language: The diviners used two negatives defining verbs or nouns, when writing their pronostiques on one side of the turtle plastrons, and they used two other negatives defining verbs or nouns, when writing what really did happen on the other side of the turtle plastrons.

聖人無為故無敗也 無執故無失也 慎終若始則無敗事矣 Sages have no activity and therefore no errors. They have no grip and therefore no losses. Caution ends as well as begins a rule of the flawless office. 'wu wei' isn't complicated; the term means 'no activity'.

We know from the oldest Guodian Tao Te Ching, that Laozi originally wrote the term as 亡為 wang wei There are two versions of chapter 64 in the Guodian Tao Te Ching. One with 亡為 and one with 無為 That'll say Laozi changed the term from wang wei into wu wei and rewrote the chapter 64 text. This Guodian chapter 64C text passage is thus Laozi's own mature definition of the term: 聖人無為 故無敗也 無執 故無失也 慎終若始 則無敗事矣