[TTC Study] Chapter 15 of the Tao Teh Ching

[dawei]

道: Tao

者: -ist; -er

 

道 + 者 = Tao + ist = Taoist

 

道者: those who follow the principles of Tao.

Those who follow the principles of Tao which are Taoists.

Those who follow the principle of water are "Waterist".

 

If you get caught up in translating words like Lienshen... we get translations like this in english.

 

I am hoping you see the stupidity of this.

Edited July 23, 2011 by dawei

[ChiDragon]

Those who follow the principle of water are "Waterist".

 

If you get caught up in translating words like Lienshen... we get translations like this in english.

 

I am hoping you see the stupidity of this.

I would say it is a level of understanding. It is obvious that "Waterist" does not apply here. Sometimes, things do work one way but not the other. What you are saying here is "水者" as "Waterist" which makes no sense in the Chinese language. In the case with "道者" as "Taoist" is very appropriate.

 

I am no sinologist, let's say that I only speak and write the language for about 62 years. Fortunately, I have learned to type the characters on an English keyboard for 20 years. Furthermore, I had been studied the Tao Te Ching for about five to six years. My sources were strictly written in my native language. Thus, I did not have to deal with any mistranslation in English; but sometimes I learned some English words from the other scholars. I do admit there were some misinterpretation in my native source. However, I think I was stupid enough to sort them out.

 

I'm happy to discuss and resolve any issues with anyone as long the materials were presented logically and legitimately; but none of this "Waterist" stuff.

 

 

PS...

I had declared already that I am using a Received Version of the Tao Te Ching to share my translation here. I had also declared that I am only translating the lines are being presented. If someone wish to bring the different lines from other versions, it will not be suitable for the Received Version. If one character has been changed, the logic of the whole chapter must be scrutinized. Otherwise, we may be going circles and tried to force something to fit.

Edited July 23, 2011 by ChiDragon

[dawei]

I am no sinologist, let's say that I only speak and write the language for about 62 years. Fortunately, I have learned to type the characters on an English keyboard for 20 years. Furthermore, I had been studied the Tao Te Ching for about five to six years. My sources were strictly written in my native language. Thus, I did not have to deal with any mistranslation in English; but sometimes I learned some English words from the other scholars. I do admit there were some misinterpretation in my native source. However, I think I was stupid enough to sort them out.

 

I love to discuss and result any issues with anyone as long the materials were presented logically and legitimately; but none of this "Waterist" stuff.

 

 

PS...

I had declared already that I am using a Received Version of the Tao Te Ching to share my translation here. I had also declared that I am only translating the lines are being presented. If someone wish to bring the different lines from other versions, it will not be suitable for the Received Version. If one character has changed, the logic of the whole chapter must be scrutinized. Otherwise, we may be going circles and tried to force something to fit.

No need for a resume... your grammatically clueless translations precede your english You can stop trying to win anyone over with 20 years 'keyboard experience'... BTW: Nobody says it that way... hint hint. You prove my point easy enough.

 

Your using a version nobody else really uses... so you bring up the very point I want to ask: Why are you running us around in circles to force something to fit ??????

 

I showed almost a dozen translations of the most respected versions without one case of "Taoist"; yet you want to push and force it down our throats as the proper translation. Is that your keyboard you cannot control your fingers on? Please go on as you wish... but your not fooling anybody with your games to push your native translators here who use some secret and corrected version.

 

Stick to whatever translation you want. Accept that 1,000 translations disagree. And drop the whole logic and legitimate plea... your saying it Ad nauseum. It's getting quite pathetic to repeat it over and over again. Stop the rhetoric games.

[ChiDragon]

dawei...

I do follow your twisting logic. Actually, the words used by someone was only an indication of how less one knows. Of course, that applies to me too. However, if one wish to follow what others says inconsistently but still willing to accepted them fanatically, go for it. I have no problem with that.

 

 

PS...

The Received Version of the Tao Te Ching is no secret. It just happens to be not reaching to you yet. I had posted the original here, all the time, to show some consistency. Somehow, someone is still using some outdated copies but not versions with tremendous errors as baseline. Most of the time, you are not addressing the real issue instead you are playing some kind of games yourself.

Edited July 23, 2011 by ChiDragon

[dawei]

[ChiDragon]

Translations can never be consistent. Of course, "道者" is not "Taoist" in the classic text because it is "道者" and "Taoist" is only the translation into the English. IT IS IN ENGLISH ONLY, PERIOD. Why are we kept talking, back and forth, about apples and oranges.

 

I don’t stick to just one text but usually review them all to arrive at my understanding;

 

FYI: The native scholars had done exactly that and came up with the Received Version with consistency.

Edited July 23, 2011 by ChiDragon

[dawei]

Translations can never be consistent. Of course, "道者" is not "Taoist" in the classic text because it is "道者" and "Taoist" is only the translation into the English. IT IS IN ENGLISH ONLY, PERIOD. Why are we kept talking, back and forth, about apples and oranges.

 

I disagreed with translating IN ENGLISH as "Taoist" (apple) because it is not what the classic text means (apple). Yet you still pushed the issue after i disagreed with saying again:

道: Tao

者: -ist; -er

 

道 + 者 = Tao + ist = Taoist (orange)

 

Yet now you agree with this point; (that your translating apples into oranges)

 

If it is not what was said/meant in the classic text, I personally would not be inclined to say it in English; that makes no sense to me. That has been my point all along and why I gave ample examples as to why I think your translation as "Taoist" is using the wrong word.

 

I am for keeping apples as apples and oranges as oranges; from classic text to modern translation. Ergo,

 

FYI: The native scholars had done exactly that and came up with the Received Version with consistency.

That's a good receipt for being cultish; only follow what a group has decided is the correct way without having your own thought.

 

No thanks. I'll keep my freedom to think for myself. I am sure I will disagree with them since like many modern chinese handling of the past, they want to take the spiritual or mystical completely out. They did it largely with Chinese medicine and do that with ancient texts like Lao Zi. Then they end up with too much Wang Bi'ism in the translation. That is not my interest at all.

 

I disagree with most of your lines and certain work usage makes no sense. But you can see how much trouble it is to get you to see one word in one line. I am just not interested in explaining all the bad english usage.

Edited July 23, 2011 by dawei

[ChiDragon]

We are going no where, aren't we....???

It is OK. Let's not talk about them.....

 

BTW Those are not my own interpretations. They are only my translations of the interpretations of the native knowledgeable scholars. You can take it or leave it. I'll be Wu Wei about it.

 

PS...

Let's say I felt the same way about your Chinese as you felt about my English.

Edited July 24, 2011 by ChiDragon

[dawei]

PS...

Let's say I felt the same way about your Chinese as you felt about my English.

Your wu-wei because you said so? Is that wu-wei to do?

 

Except I have never made any claim concerning my ability with the chinese language. But I'll make one: I really know nothing about it.

[ChiDragon]

Your wu-wei because you said so? Is that wu-wei to do?

 

Except I have never made any claim concerning my ability with the chinese language. But I'll make one: I really know nothing about it.

hehehe..........

There is no need to make any claims about your ability with the Chinese language. The reflection of the comments made by each individual will reveal his/her basic knowledge and personality. Even though you have claimed that you knew nothing about the Chinese language. You sure had me fooled. Based on your comments on some of your responses, I have to give you some credit for your knowledge on the Chinese language.

 

About your Wu Wei comment, I knew it was coming. However, I can only try to be Wu Wei because I am part of the interaction, here. Perhaps, Wu Wei is more suitable and applicable to more serious situations case by case, so to speak.

Edited July 23, 2011 by ChiDragon

[Harmonious Emptiness]

Some more translation wankery from me:

 

what do you guys think of the line:

 

 

04 夫唯不可識,

夫唯不可志

Which man夫 alone唯 cannot comprehend

 

Was he saying that animals can comprehend this depth which man cannot? That man is the most limited in understanding the mysterious depths?

[Marblehead]

I think that lines 1 - 4 must be considered together.

 

Lao Tzu is speaking of the wise (pure) ones (Sages) of the past. He is suggesting that man of his time failed to understand them because they could no longer look into the depths of the Tao because they were blinded by the desires of the day.

 

And then, 2500 years later we haven't gotten much better; perhaps even more blinded.

 

I think we are speaking only of man (and woman) here, not of other animals.

[ChiDragon]

Some more translation wankery from me:

 

what do you guys think of the line:

 

 

04 夫唯不可識,

夫唯不可志

Which man夫 alone唯 cannot comprehend

 

Was he saying that animals can comprehend this depth which man cannot? That man is the most limited in understanding the mysterious depths?

 

Here is the hard part for someone that doesn't have knowledge of the Classic Chinese.

 

夫, in this case, it means "therefore" rather than "a man".

唯 means only or "because of" but not "alone". There is a nuance between the two meanings of the English words.

 

It is very easy for a non-native as well as a modern Chinese to misinterpret the characters in classic.

 

PS....

Your translation is not saying what it says in the phrases. Based what I'd told, would you like to try to translate that again....???

Edited September 5, 2012 by ChiDragon

[Harmonious Emptiness]

Here is the hard part for someone that doesn't have knowledge of the Classic Chinese.

 

夫, in this case, it means "therefore" rather than "a man".

唯 means only or "because of" but not "alone". There is a nuance between the two meanings of the English words.

 

 

Can I ask you how you know, in this case, that it means "therefore"?

[ChiDragon]

Can I ask you how you know, in this case, that it means "therefore"?

This character is so difficult to explain now because people are hardly using that way anymore. But in classic, 夫 was used at the beginning and the end of a phrase as a particle.

 

Ref: 夫

Particle

夫 (traditional and simplified, Pinyin fú)

1. ​(literary) sentence-final, meaning "Is it not?"
    
   
2. ​(literary) initial particle which introduces a topic
   

Edited September 5, 2012 by ChiDragon

[Harmonious Emptiness]

Interesting, thanks.

 

Do you have any other example references where it is used like this? The example at the link seemed like it referred to "the general."

 

I see at the Etymology site it also says that it can be a particle, but knowing when it's a particle, when it's a pronoun, or literally "man" seems to be all in context. I don't see how it being at the beginning or end of a sentence necessarily means it's a particle when the context seems to mean "he, that, or man."

 

Is there any other rule(s) to it?

Edited September 5, 2012 by Harmonious Emptiness

[ChiDragon]

use at the beginning of the sentence

夫

fú

【助】

 

用于句首,有提示作用(Used at the beginning...)

夫秦有虎狼之心。——《史记·项羽本径》

夫六国与秦皆诸侯,其势弱于秦。——宋·苏洵《六国论》

夫战,勇气也

 

 

用于句中,舒缓语气(used in the middle....)

乃歌夫“长铗归来”者也。——《战国策·齐策》

用于句尾名，表示感叹

孟子曰：“术不可不慎。”信夫!——清·方苞《狱中杂记》

悲夫!有如此之势，而为秦人积威之所劫。——宋·苏洵《六国论》

另见fū

[ChiDragon]

Is there any other rule(s) to it?

 

There are no rules, it was straightly up to the comprehension of each individual how fluent in the classic.

[Harmonious Emptiness]

I find in these sentences that I get basically the same meaning translating it as "therefore/So" or as "men" or as a pronoun.

 

夫秦有虎狼之心

Therefore, Qin had the courage of a wolf

Men of Qin had the courage of a wolf

 

夫战,勇气也

Therefore (in) war, bravery rises

When men are at war, their bravery rises

 

悲夫!

Such sorrow!

Their sorrow!

This sorrow!

 

 

It doesn't seem to mislead too much one way or the other, imo.

Edited September 5, 2012 by Harmonious Emptiness

[Harmonious Emptiness]

I think that lines 1 - 4 must be considered together.

 

Lao Tzu is speaking of the wise (pure) ones (Sages) of the past. He is suggesting that man of his time failed to understand them because they could no longer look into the depths of the Tao because they were blinded by the desires of the day.

 

And then, 2500 years later we haven't gotten much better; perhaps even more blinded.

 

I think we are speaking only of man (and woman) here, not of other animals.

 

I agree with this, and also that he is more than likely saying this in the characters. Even if they have a different "literal" meaning according to the usage of the day, it seems to me the more I pay attention to the Etymologies the more I get of the subtle lessons that one can perceive even through the "proper" translation. This may change, but so far it seems 9 times out of 10. I really suspect that the writers were so adept at writing and aware of every influence in their surroundings that they would have been aware of these overtones and kept them in line with their intended meaning. To each their own, but, I feel like I'm getting more out of it by reading it this way, with some flexibility that it does not always work this way..

 

Nonetheless, it's certainly helpful to know what the usage and grammar of the day was when reading texts from those eras.

 

edit: typos

Edited September 5, 2012 by Harmonious Emptiness

[ChiDragon]

夫秦有虎狼之心

Therefore, Qin had the courage of a wolf >>> Therefore, Qin has the heart of a tiger and wolf.

 

Note: The heart of a tiger and wolf implies evil and aggressive in Chinese thinking.

 

 

 

夫战,勇气也

Therefore (in) war, bravery rises >>> To Fight, that's courage.

When men are at war, their bravery rises

 

悲夫!

Such sorrow! >>>Sad, isn't it...???

 

Is ok, It is hard to get over the hurdle with this.

Edited September 5, 2012 by ChiDragon

[Harmonious Emptiness]

夫秦有虎狼之心

Therefore, Qin had the courage of a wolf >>> Therefore, Qin has the heart of a tiger and wolf.

 

Note: The heart of a tiger and wolf implies evil and aggressive in Chinese thinking.

 

.. oh yeah, whoops. I looked at these before and then went back, mistakenly thinking "虎 tiger" was where I read bravery.

 

夫战,勇气也

Therefore (in) war, bravery rises >>> To Fight, that's courage.

When men are at war, their bravery rises

 

Okay, but I'm not far off still..

 

 

悲夫!

Such sorrow! >>>Sad, isn't it...???

 

Again, not far off right?

 

 

Do you see what I mean though, that one can pretty much determine the usages here by the context alone?

 

 

btw, I see what you mean better here. questions stand hwv..

Edited September 5, 2012 by Harmonious Emptiness

[ChiDragon]

.. oh yeah, whoops. I looked at these before and then went back, mistakenly thinking "虎 tiger" was where I read bravery.

 

Okay, but I'm not far off still..

 

Again, not far off right?

 

Do you see what I mean though, that one can pretty much determine the usages here by the context alone?

Yes, but from a non native is fine. However, for a native, it has to restricted to the linguistic comprehension.

勇气: the exact meaning is "courage". If one really wants to learn the Classic, it should learn the right way. Thus something close is not enough....

 

You see, you have to go through a whole bunch of references to get the meaning of a characters. There was still a great uncertainty on your part. For me, I can just jump right into it and get you an answer except with some difficult meanings of some classic characters.

Edited September 5, 2012 by ChiDragon

[ChiDragon]

悲夫!

Sad, isn't it...???

btw, I see what you mean better here. questions stand hwv..

 

Ref: 夫

Particle

夫 (traditional and simplified, Pinyin fú)​(literary) sentence-final, meaning "Is it not?"

Edited September 5, 2012 by ChiDragon

[Harmonious Emptiness]

So, more language lessons..

 

what would you say 唯 means in

 

夫唯不可識,

夫唯不可志

Which man夫 alone(only)唯 cannot comprehend

 

fyi, "man alone" is sort of an older literary style of saying "man only."

Edited September 6, 2012 by Harmonious Emptiness