lienshan
-
Content count
697 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by lienshan
-
-
In the Guodian, there are five lines but a stop after four; and again at five;
1. Those that seek learning each day are those who generate an accumulation [of such learning]
2. Those that seek to follow the Way each day are those who experience a disappearance [of this way of life]
3. A gradual disappearance until all is completely gone.
4. And then one reaches [the point of] no thought-generated action.
5. When nothing is thought-generated, what action is there left to do (...but more of the same practice)
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".
-
1
-
-
But take good care of your wei wei.
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?
-
In classic text, "wang" and "wu" are interchangeable as "none" which implies that something that "does not exist". Hence, There was no difference between "wang wei" and "wu wei".
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)
-
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!
The post above was totally incorrect and misleading.
What's incorrect concerning the logic of my reading?
-
I just tend to side with the majority of authorities who have translated this chapter
and view it as not being something you can literally translate.
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.
-
Anyways... when I have the time I'll look at the original texts and try to come up with a better translation...
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
-
Here is the translation of the interpretation of an knowledgeable scholar 陳鼓應.
1. During the golden era, the people don't even know that the government had ever existed.
2. The second best, people are very close to and praise the government.
3. The worse government, the people are feared.
4. The next worse, the people are resented.
5. The government was untrustworthy,
6. The people will not trust it.
7. The best government doesn't issue decrees lightly,
8. And complete all affairs in an orderly manner.
9. All the people will say: for us that was only natural.
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.
-
Chuang Tzu had no thoughts of his own, because he shared them with us.
That's not fair because you are using faulty logic. Hehehe. But good try.
The Sage has no mind that can be called his own,
Therefore, his mind reflects the true nature of humanity
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"
-
My problem is still deep rooted. I consider Chuang Tzu to have been a Sage.
He was very opinionated - he had many thoughts of his own.
Chuang Tzu had no thoughts of his own, because he shared them with us.
-
So a Sage sees a criminal and trusts him because he understands the true nature of the criminal, that the acts alone do not define the man, but that it goes deeper than that, it involves his place within the whole, so he can trust the man, because he knows the man for what he is, the man cannot betray him. He is kind to all because he knows that to do otherwise is not beneficial.
This is one of my favorite passages, so it will be nice to see other people's opinions.
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.
-
MWD-A and B Chapter 64
执(之)者失之
执者失之
Those who possess it will lose it.
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.
-
In classic text, both lines are saying the something. The second (之) may be omitted or optional; and it was mentally understood that the second (之) is there. Thus the original thought have not changed.
Please show us a similar example from another classic (pre-Qin) text
-
Should I mention that I have a problem with these two lines as well?
Not your translation but the concept being presented.
I just casn't believe that the Sage does not have thought of his/her own.
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?
-
John Wu
The Sage has no interests of his own,
But takes the interests of the people as his own.
English/Feng
The sage has no mind of his own.
He is aware of the needs of others.
Robert Henricks
The Sage constantly has no [set] mind;
He takes the mind of the common people as his mind.
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!
-
You'll need to translate the Guodian since a single line needs it's place among the whole.
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.
-
It seems most want some poetic explanation; or not translate at all.
The last line of the Guodian chapter 48 translated:
Disappearing is acting; disappeared is not acting.
-
... Perhaps this translation is completely wrong.
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.
-
In regards to expertise, that was one of many translations of a word that has also been translated as cleverness.
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)
-
but he was speaking specifically to the knowledge of those who wish to manipulate the nature of man.
Dear friend, how do you know that?
-
"Terminate expertise" is just suggesting naturalness -- when you get into a fight you don't start doing a kata.. you forget what you learned and just act. [edit: well, if you are a master anyway. Bruce Lee put it: approximately "learn the techniques, then when you discard the technique you have all the techniques available to you in an instant"]
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.
-
I have no intention of terminating wisdon and expertise. That was your suggestion, not mine.
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?
-
The goal determines what position one should assume.
The goal determining is tactics; your strategical position is a choice!
high or low?
If you choose high then you can terminate wisdom and expertise because:
"Though one's bow is weak, if one shots from a great high,
one's arrow will fly swifter than the wind."
But can you too terminate wisdom and expertise if you choose low?
-
But I can't find any explanation or arguement? Where's the logic?
I've found it: Chapter 19 preceeds in the Guodian Tao Teh Ching chapter 66:
That which allows the rivers and seas to serve as kings of the small valley streams,
Is their ability to be below the small valley streams.
Therefore, they can serve as the kings of the small valley streams.
Shen Dao's strategical position is above and Lao Tzu's is below.
[TTC Study] Chapter 48 of the Tao Teh Ching
in Daodejing
Posted · Edited by lienshan
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)?