[TTC Study] Chapter 15 of the Tao Teh Ching

[dawei]

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."

As MB rightly points out, the opening lines really define the meaning of this section...

 

So, 夫 is a reference to 'those men' of the opening line... or if you translate the opening as "the man of Dao..." then it is a reference to that 'man' of Dao.

 

I am not trying to suggest that the meaning of 夫 is 'man' here; but rather that the interpretation of the transitional participle is in this particular case is a reference to the man/men/people in the opening lines.

Edited September 6, 2012 by dawei

[Harmonious Emptiness]

As MB rightly points out, the opening lines really define the meaning of this section...

 

So, 夫 is a reference to 'those men' of the opening line... or if you translate the opening as "the man of Dao..." then it is a reference to that 'man' of Dao.

 

I am not trying to suggest that the meaning of 夫 is 'man' here; but rather that the interpretation of the transitional participle is in this particular case is a reference to the man/men/people in the opening lines.

 

Not sure I get you right.. because it sounds like then it would say "they alone do not comprehend" but they were those who were "able to see the subtle and mysterious through their deep intelligence"

[dawei]

Not sure I get you right.. because it sounds like then it would say "they alone do not comprehend" but they were those who were "able to see the subtle and mysterious through their deep intelligence"

If I properly understand what your are saying that I am saying.... I think that is right.

 

they were those who were "able to see the subtle and mysterious through their deep intelligence"

 

This would be the point of the opening lines....

 

and then it says:

 

They are too profound to be understood or known... (typical read) , from 深不可識

 

But the oldest texts have:

深不可志

 

I am inclined to say that it should be read more like: [their] profoundness (or insight or attainment) is not of the Will.

Edited September 6, 2012 by dawei

[Marblehead]

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

Yes, I do respect what you and the others are doing in regard to trying to grasp a deeper understanding of the Chapters. As I mentioned before, I am really enjoying reading the work you guys are doing.

 

For me, of course, the message in more important than the singular words that are being used to present the message. But then too, if the word has been mistranslated and leads to an understanding that is invalid then this should be pointed out and discussed.

 

And then too, we should try to understand the time and culture of when the TTC was written because this will greatly effect how the words used should be understood. This is what you guys are doing. Great job!!!

[Marblehead]

Ref: 夫

Particle

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

Chuang Tzu used this terminator as well. I think it is an excellent means of terminating the train of thought while also adding a personal opinion or observation by the writer.

 

Sad, isn't it? (Rethink what I just said.)

[ChiDragon]

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."

 

"man only" perhaps it would be.....人唯

 

Please keep in mind this is classic. In classic, 夫唯 is different from 人唯.

 

This is my last comment on this. Take it or leave it....!!!

Edited September 6, 2012 by ChiDragon

[ChiDragon]

Chuang Tzu used this terminator as well. I think it is an excellent means of terminating the train of thought while also adding a personal opinion or observation by the writer.

 

Sad, isn't it? (Rethink what I just said.)

 

You are a gentleman and a scholar....

[Harmonious Emptiness]

 

If I properly understand what your are saying that I am saying.... I think that is right.

 

they were those who were "able to see the subtle and mysterious through their deep intelligence"

 

This would be the point of the opening lines....

 

and then it says:

 

They are too profound to be understood or known... (typical read) , from 深不可識

 

But the oldest texts have:

深不可志

 

I am inclined to say that it should be read more like: [their] profoundness (or insight or attainment) is not of the Will.

 

Okay, that makes sense as to why Henricks translated as "4. It is only because he cannot be known

5. That therefore were I forced to describe him I'd say:"

 

tnx.

[Harmonious Emptiness]

"man only" perhaps it would be.....人唯

 

Please keep in mind this is classic. In classic, 夫唯 is different from 人唯.

 

This is my last comment on this. Take it or leave it....!!!

 

fyi, I didn't mean to push on the 夫=man thing, just wondering how you would say 唯 works here. I'm satisfied with the above post though.. thanks for your time Chi Dragon.

[ChiDragon]

fyi, I didn't mean to push on the 夫=man thing, just wondering how you would say 唯 works here. I'm satisfied with the above post though.. thanks for your time Chi Dragon.

Actually, it doesn't mean "only" here. You are hopping around and I cannot keep track of the meaning anymore.

 

Edited to add:

BTW This is my last revision to stay within context for lines 4 and 5.

4. 夫唯不可識，

4. Therefore, because(唯) it was difficult to comprehend,

 

5. 故強為之容。

5. Then, it was difficult to describe them,

Edited September 7, 2012 by ChiDragon

[dawei]

ChiDragon... you have a habit of stating an emotionalism of "This is my last comment on this" and it is very, very, very rare that you do not post again... You usually post more. This means that your emotion and your desire are not in sync. So let's get it in sync.

 

I would recommend that you stop this emotionalism posting and if you have something to say; say it; If you have nothing to say, then be silent. Then if you find something of interest to post again... post again... this is really simple.

 

Your input is valuable but the emotional content is yours to deal with.

[ChiDragon]

"This is my last comment on this"

The "this" was referring to a "particular subject" that was mentioned in that post. I will post again if something new that comes up.

 

 

PS.....

The reason I do that was I don't want to repeat myself over and over for the same thing.

Edited September 7, 2012 by ChiDragon

[dawei]

"This is my last comment on this"

The "this" was referring to a "particular subject" that was mentioned in that post. I will post again if something new that comes up.

 

 

PS.....

The reason I do that was I don't want to repeat myself over and over for the same thing.

But you always repeat yourself over and over and over... It is a sign that you 'feel' you are not being listened to...

 

You are being listened to and at times what is shared is simply pushed asided as not useful... but you want to push it again and again.

 

Maybe this can help you digest what your feeling with your repetition. Saying it the second time only seems to help you but if that is helping calm the emotions then so be it.

[ChiDragon]

Is it not the truth is worth repeating....??? Perhaps not to repeat it to the same person all the time.

What is wrong with showing a little emotion as long as it is not too abusive......???

Edited September 11, 2012 by ChiDragon

[dawei]

Is it not the truth is worth repeating....??? Perhaps not to repeat it to the same person all the time.

What is wrong with showing a little emotion as long as it is not too abusive......???

Your 'truth' is really your opinion... your just not being honest with yourself about such ideas.

 

So what you really mean is: Is your opinion worth repeating? If it helps your emotional stability then go for it... if that is what you need to get through the day... take another shot at it...

 

Maybe shut off the computer and walk outside... it is actually cheaper as you are paying for your internet service. Maybe you hope to get the most of those dollars spent... so it is really about dollars and nonsense posting which makes your emotion stable... Whatever it takes... go for it...

[dust]

I kind of get the feeling sometimes that a lot of translators translate based on what other translators have come up with, rather than the actual text. When I read this particular chapter from the Guodian slips, I can't figure out how other people translated it the way they did.

 

This. Yes. When looking at the original script, the Henricks GD translation is, as far as I can tell, often off the mark. And horribly clunky.

 

Just looking at the first half..

 

 

 

长古之善为士者，

必非溺（弱）玄达，

深不可志。

是以为之颂：

夜乎奴（如）冬涉川。

猷乎其奴（如）畏四邻。

敢其奴（如）客。

涣乎其奴（如）怿。

 

Those who were good at being noble in antiquity

Were without doubt subtle and profound, mysterious and penetratingly wise.

So deep that they cannot be known.

...

For this reason we praise them in the following way:

 

Hesitant were they! Like someone crossing a river in winter.

Cautious were they! Like someone wary of his four neighbors.

Deferential were they! Like guests.

Accommodating were they! Like melting ice.

 

 

 

Line 1 "Good at being noble" -- aside from anything else, this is not very idiomatic English, is it?

 

Line 2 The received version (& translations) calls the ancient ones "unfathomably deep" etc, but I can't figure how, in the GD, 必非 doesn't mean "absolutely not" ...? That they were, in fact, "not mysterious or deep beyond ambition".

To me, that makes a lot more sense. It was their simplicity, their childlikeness, that made them closer to Dao. This also fits with the description of them in the next few lines: hesitant, cautious, etc. They were not profound, but simple, and therein lay their wisdom.

 

Line 6 猷 is/was a pictograph of a drunken dog. As far as I can tell, it meant "lost", not "cautious"

邻 -- the character in the slips looks nothing like 鄰. It seems like they chose this transcription based on the received version and its translations rather than the character on the slip. Though I can't figure out what character it actually is...! Could it be another version of "neighbour" ?

 

Line 7 敢 means "brave", and at one point, 客 meant not guest but "one under another's roof" -- a pictograph of 各, a foreign invader, under a roof. So this line could equally mean "brave like a stranger in a foreign land".

 

Look at how the characters change with the versions: 敢 嚴 儼 -- brave, solemn, venerable (GD, MWD, WB). Huge changes in meaning, but all based on the same component (敢). To me, this suggests that later versions were playing with and adding to the meaning, but that 敢 may have been the original.

 

Line 8 涣 -- how this? Looks very much more like 觀 (with 见 on the left) to me.

怿 -- how does this mean "melting ice" ?

 

 

 

Just..so confusing. There's a very good chance I've missed out on info that Henricks has, but could I be so wrong about all of it?

Edited September 30, 2014 by dustybeijing

[Marblehead]

 

Just..so confusing. There's a very good chance I've missed out on info that Henricks has, but could I be so wrong about all of it?

Hehehe. Sometimes we just have to go with our gut feelings.

 

I mean, how many variations are there of Christianity?

 

However, I will stand by Henricks' translations because they were scholastic ventures without the desire to preach the philosophy.

 

In Henricks' translation of the Guodian he did devote an entire page of notes explaining why he chose the manner of his translations of the characters.

 

And there are significant differences between his Guodian and his MWD translations.

 

But then again, I think that we should not consider the Guodian to be a complete copy of the TTC that existed at that time. They likely were a teacher's notes modified to fit into the teachings being presented.

 

I would still say that the MWD (the two versions) is the best source for the TTC.

[dust]

Hehehe. Sometimes we just have to go with our gut feelings.

 

I mean, how many variations are there of Christianity?

 

For sure

 

 

However, I will stand by Henricks' translations because they were scholastic ventures without the desire to preach the philosophy.

 

In Henricks' translation of the Guodian he did devote an entire page of notes explaining why he chose the manner of his translations of the characters.

 

I'm not sure one page would be enough to allay my doubts.. I may pick it up, when I have the money

 

 

But then again, I think that we should not consider the Guodian to be a complete copy of the TTC that existed at that time. They likely were a teacher's notes modified to fit into the teachings being presented.

 

 

I would still say that the MWD (the two versions) is the best source for the TTC.

 

Probably. Certainly, looking at it now, after over 2,000 years of Daoism, one would like to have the TTC, as we know it today, presented in its entirety. The GD lacks in that regard.

 

But the GD is early.

 

If we were to find a text that seemed to be part of the Hebrew Bible -- a collection of chapters, written say ~1,000 BCE, which presented an early version of Genesis, or Exodus, or whatever, but not precisely as we know it today -- would we base translations of this text on our modern understanding of the Bible? Changing words when we felt like it because they didn't fit with what we "know"? Or would we translate the text as we found it, and hope to learn something new about the evolution of the Old Testament?

[Marblehead]

I'm not sure one page would be enough to allay my doubts.. I may pick it up, when I have the money

That was just to Chapter 15.

 

But the GD is early.

Yes. And that is why I bought it. I wanted to see if it presented any variation of the basic philosophy. It doesn't, IMO.

 

If we were to find a text that seemed to be part of the Hebrew Bible -- a collection of chapters, written say ~1,000 BCE, which presented an early version of Genesis, or Exodus, or whatever, but not precisely as we know it today -- would we base translations of this text on our modern understanding of the Bible? Changing words when we felt like it because they didn't fit with what we "know"? Or would we translate the text as we found it, and hope to learn something new about the evolution of the Old Testament?

Exactly. And here again, people will go with their gut and either ignore the earlier or make changes if they are justified.

 

I did a revised Henricks MWD in a Word document that replaced the MWD lines of effected chapters with the Guodian lines. It still reads fine, IMO.

[Taoist Texts]

道德經15

 

《道德經》: 古之善為士者，微妙玄通，深不可識。夫唯不可識，故強為之容。

豫兮若冬涉川；猶兮若畏四鄰；儼兮其若容；渙兮若冰之將釋；敦兮其若樸；曠兮其若谷；混兮其若濁；

孰能濁以靜之徐清？孰能安以久動之徐生？保此道者，不欲盈。夫唯不盈，故能蔽不新成。

 

《老子河上公章句·顯德》: 古之善為士者，微妙玄通，深不可識。夫唯不可識，故強為之容。

與兮若冬涉川；猶兮若畏四鄰；儼兮其若容；渙兮若冰之將釋，敦兮其若朴，曠兮其若谷；渾兮其若濁。

孰能濁以靜之，徐清。孰能安以久動之，徐生。保此道者，不欲盈。夫惟不盈，故能蔽不新成。

 

《郭店·老子甲》: 古之善為士者，必微妙玄達，深不可識，是以為之頌：

豫乎若冬涉川，猶乎其若畏四鄰，敢乎其若客，渙乎其若釋，屯乎其若樸，沌乎其若濁。

孰能濁以靜者，將徐清。孰能牝以主者，將徐生。保此道者不欲尚浧。

 

《馬王堆·老子甲道經》: □□□□□□□□□□，深不可志。夫唯不可志，故強為之容，曰：

與呵其若冬□□□□□□畏四□，□呵其若客，浼呵其若淩澤，□呵其若幄春□□□□□□□若浴。

濁而情之，余清。女以重之，余生。葆此道，不欲盈。夫唯不欲□□以能□□□成。

 

《馬王堆·老子乙道經》: 古之屳為道者，微眇玄達，深不可志。夫唯不可志，故強為之容，曰：

與呵其若冬涉水，猷呵其若畏四，嚴呵其若客，浼呵其若淩澤，沌呵其若樸，湷呵其若濁，莊呵其若浴。

濁而靜之，徐清。女以重之，徐生。葆此道□□欲盈。是以能敝而不成。

 

 

As Marblehead properly noted, it’s a hopeless task to translate based on just one version since they are all corrupted to almost an equal degree, fortunately, creating a concordance out of the bits that make sense when collated is still possible. One clue which bits to choose as the correct ones is to recognize the known idiomatic expressions marked by brackets below:

 

古之善{為道}者，ancients who were good at conducting Dao,

{微眇}{玄達}, hid deep (their intent) from the sight,

深不可識. so deep that it could not be known.

夫唯不可識，since it could not be known,

故{強為}之容，曰：therefore we at least describe tenuously their exterior behavior, saying:

豫乎若冬涉川, hesitant as if fording a river in winter,

猷呵其若畏{四鄰}, planning as if scared of the neighboring countries,

嚴呵其若客, respectful like a guest,

浼呵其若淩澤, dirty like ice on a frozen marsh,

屯乎其若樸, dumb like a log,

渾兮其若濁opaque like muddy waters.

濁而靜之，徐清When muddy water calms down – the rest is clear.

牝以主者，將徐生。When the female is made master – the life lasts.

保此道者，不欲盈。Those who preserve this Dao – do not bring their desires to fulfillment.

夫惟不盈，because there is no fulfillment,

是以能敝而不成. Therefore there is no fullness for them and no end.

[dust]

Yes. And that is why I bought it. I wanted to see if it presented any variation of the basic philosophy. It doesn't, IMO.

 

We agree -- the basic philosophy is the same. No quibbling over the basics!

 

I'd like to read the Scott Cook translation.. but it's out of my price range!

[dust]

creating a concordance out of the bits that make sense when collated is still possible.

 

Yes, and this is what Henricks seems to have done. Picked little bits from the GD, but mostly collated it with other versions.

 

Before collation, though, should we not have to bother properly transcribing and translating the GD's actual characters and their meanings?

[Marblehead]

 

I'd like to read the Scott Cook translation.. but it's out of my price range!

Yes, the price on that is ridiculous. Even the paperback is way over priced.

[Marblehead]

One clue which bits to choose as the correct ones is to recognize the known idiomatic expressions marked by brackets below:

Nice translation.

[Marblehead]

Yes, and this is what Henricks seems to have done. Picked little bits from the GD, but mostly collated it with other versions.

He did the same with A and B of the MWD. What 'felt' better to him was what he used. But again, I'm not sure he has a deep understanding of Chinese ancient culture so his choices might wee be argued.

 

Before collation, though, should we not have to bother properly transcribing and translating the GD's actual characters and their meanings?

Well, sure. But even the interpretations from the original bamboo may be flawed. Too bad they didn't have computers back then.