[TTC Study] Chapter 1 of the Tao Te Ching

[dawei]

眇 in the received text is 妙, something which was giving me trouble. I love the character (女 + 少 = young woman) but it wasn't obvious to me whether it meant subtle, mysterious, wonderful, or what. Young women are all these things, of course, as is Dao, but I want one word.

I had it as "mystery". This other miao seems to clear it up a bit for me: 目 + 少 = difficult to see/perceive. According to one source, both insignificant and boundless. The Invisible, the Unperceivable?

 

I prefer 眇 as it nicely ties back to the perceive.

 

I think 妙 is interesting because, as H.E. suggests, the feminine properties are often mentioned of Dao.

 

 

噭 in the received texts is 徼, also giving me trouble. Most have it as "manifestations", though I thought maybe "the edge" (i.e. "free of desire, see the mystery; full of desire see only its edge").

噭 seems to mean "shout/call" (or possibly the orifice of an animal ), so...I'm not sure at all. But I've chosen "manifest" as something tangible, as opposed to "unperceivable"

 

......so....there ya go.

 

Here, 徼 makes sense when understand as manifest (or boundary [of existence]), as it juxtaposes with the unperceived.

 

噭 is not just a shout, but sound itself. Maybe like the singular voice of creation giving rise to the ten thousand and what we "hear" (sense) is their echoing sound.

[dust]

I prefer 眇 as it nicely ties back to the perceive.

 

I think 妙 is interesting because, as H.E. suggests, the feminine properties are often mentioned of Dao.

 

As a character, I prefer 妙! ...but as a part of this chapter, talking about identification (名), 眇 does fit nicely.

 

噭 is not just a shout, but sound itself. Maybe like the singular voice of creation giving rise to the ten thousand

 

Have you read the Silmarillion? It's been a few years, but I loved the genesis chapter, where reality is created from song. I recall also the Hindu idea of existence beginning as a vibration (OM)?

 

Translating it as such would sound quite wonderful...

[ChiDragon]

We've been hearing this proclamation of the one and only true meaning for three years... His comma's and nobody else.

 

As you probably know, there are not commas in the original...

 

Even though there are no commas in the original, but please don't forget the commas were placed, mentally, in the reader mind at the time. That is how one reads the Chinese classics. No one can deny this fact.

 

"His comma's and nobody else."

Perhaps one should have broaden one's vision and look ahead not backward.

 

 

Ref: http://web2.tcssh.tc.edu.tw/school/guowenke/books/new_page_1.htm

Edited September 1, 2014 by ChiDragon

[Marblehead]

I misuse the, comma all the, time.

 

I was once told that if I haven't stopped to take a breath I don't need a comma.

[ChiDragon]

I misuse the, comma all the, time.

 

I was once told that if I haven't stopped to take a breath I don't need a comma.

 

Well, in classics, it's better to stopped to take a breath at the right place. Otherwise, one will be suffocated to death.

[dawei]

 

Even though there are no commas in the original, but please don't forget the commas were placed, mentally, in the reader mind at the time. That is how one reads the Chinese classics. No one can deny this fact.

 

"His comma's and nobody else."

Perhaps one should have broaden one's vision and look ahead not backward.

 

 

Ref: http://web2.tcssh.tc.edu.tw/school/guowenke/books/new_page_1.htm

 

These comma placement you show are a very modern placement... some 2,000 years after Laozi by modern day scholars or websites which want to post it.

 

To cite Chan's book on his Laozi translation:

Ma Hsu-lan wrote in 1924 the comma placement as you like to boost as the one and true... yet in his 1954 book he did not have it there anymore.

 

 

We can give it to 100 people and get dozens of placements.

 

Your not adding any value in your arguments to support your comma placements.

 

You've made it quite clear it is your litmus test of CH. 1 whether another person will understand anything of the entire work or not.

 

So please stop your arguing over your commas as the One and only correct way.

 

This is a discussion forum. If you want to start a thread on the "Gospel according to Chidragon in the One and Only proper translation into English of the Laozi"... go ahead.

[ChiDragon]

 

This is a discussion forum. If you want to start a thread on the "Gospel according to Chidragon in the One and Only proper translation into English of the Laozi"... go ahead.

 

I will if you promise me that you will stay out of my thread......!!!

[dawei]

 

I will if you promise me that you will stay out of my thread......!!!

 

Do you reciprocate by staying out of everyone else's thread?

 

 

I know you would like to be above all staff and rules...

 

You already know you can start your own threads so I am done with this game you like to play with staff.

 

Last warning on side-tracking this.

 

I'll clean it up later.

[Marblehead]

Okay. Back to topic.

 

Chapter 1, Tao Te Ching: The study of various translations and the concepts contained within.

 

Which translation is more accurate is of little significance.

 

But the concepts contained within and the clarity of those concepts when translated into English is of the greatest importance.

 

Let's try to refrain from claiming which translation is better, with or without the comma.

[ChiDragon]

During the course of Wu Wei in any discussion, I was merely suggesting what I believe is the truth by all means. I am not forcing anybody what to believe and what not. Nor force anybody what to do and what not. If we are setting rules to restrict ourselves in studying the TTC, then, we are really not learning the TTC at all. Why not let nature take its course as the TTC has been suggested.

I do respect the highest officers of the forum but I also expect them to be more Wu Wei in conducting their administrative duties.

Edited September 2, 2014 by ChiDragon

[dawei]

During the course of Wu Wei in any discussion, I was merely suggesting what I believe is the truth by all means. I am not forcing anybody what to believe and what not. Nor force anybody what to do and what not. If we are setting rules to restrict ourselves in studying the TTC, then, we are really not learning the TTC at all. Why not let nature take its course as the TTC has been suggested.

 

I do respect the highest officers of the forum but I also expect them to be more Wu Wei in conducting their administrative duties.

 

You repeatedly want the last word of lecture to everyone.

 

You don't seem to comprehend the concept of Wu Wei either... Any aspect of life follows its way...

 

Here is the TTB Way:

 

http://thetaobums.com/topic/31825-thetaobums-three-foundations-eclectic-egalitarian-civil/

 

 

TheTaoBums has a strong egalitarian ethic in that it's whole purpose is to provide a civil very open context for member conversations. However, its governance structure is mostly top down; it's not a democracy.

- admins - own / run the board

- moderators - enforce rules

- members - converse

 

TTBs' Conversational Context:

1. At TTBs member participation in conversation is non-hierarchical. Meaning, members have equal ability to talk regardless of level of knowledge, achievement, or status / credentials of any kind. TTBs has an underlying ethic of valuing the communication of each person.

 

2. TTBs most basic rules about conversation are around civility (leaving enough flexibility for lively debate).

 

 

We are not here to create a Chidragon utopia where everyone bows to your lectured way.

 

I already asked you to stop side-lining this; and this is the third thread where you just want to argue your point against staff; Always believing your mission is to push your truth onto others.

 

~~~ ADMIN ACTION ~~~

 

You now have two months to figure out whether your mission is to come back to TTB and lecture everyone about your truth or you want to actually discuss a topic.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[dust]

Sorry, wrong topic.

Edited September 2, 2014 by dustybeijing

[Michael Sternbach]

I will comment on the first sentences based on James Legge's translation:

 

"The Tao that can be trodden is not the enduring and unchanging Tao. The name that can be named is not the enduring and unchanging name."

 

In my opinion, this one is addressed to those people who are looking for easily comprehensible teachings. And surely, there will always be "gurus" all too ready to teach them. "Seeker, rejoice as we will show you The Way! Just follow us [our Master] diligently, and you shall see The Truth - and be saved, once and for all!" - I guess this wasn't any different in Lao-tzu's time and place.

 

Now, Lao-tzu is teaching that "no way is the way." I always found this concept very appealing. Personally, rather than following any preset path continuously for so many years, I typically come "spiralling" back to what I started to explore after acquainting myself with other aspects of this fathomless Universe - only to find my understanding to have mysteriously deepened in the meantime. Over time, I creatively develop my own version of what I'm studying.

 

I expect to get criticised by others on this forum for my impious attitude - but I think that Lao-tzu would agree with me. The Buddha teaching only to accept what can be verified in one's personal experience, or Alice Bailey's Djwal Khul advising to, above all, listen to one's inner knowledge... They are in their own ways hinting at "the way that cannot be named."

 

Academic science (it's a religion, too!) - unbiased as it claims to be - makes the same mistaken assumption that there is, after all, a tangible answer to the question of "Life, the Universe, and Everything" (The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy). And just like in that hilarious story, in which a supercomputer is constructed in order to calculate that ultimate answer, once they had it, they would have to start all over - to find out what the question really was to begin with!

 

All this is certainly not to say that answers cannot be found - but invariably, they will open up new questions. So where does this lead us?

 

Back to Ourselves - in the Eternal Here and Now.

Edited September 2, 2014 by Michael Sternbach

[Taoist Texts]

I will comment on the first sentence based on James Legge's translation:

 

"The Tao that can be trodden is not the enduring and unchanging Tao. The name that can be named is not the enduring and unchanging name."

[Marblehead]

Sorry, wrong topic.

Hehehe. Wrong in so many ways.

[dawei]

Now, Lao-tzu is teaching "no way is the way".

 

To each his own !

 

I find a kind of playfulness in the Ke-Fe positions.

 

道可道非恆道

 

Way can, Way cannot, Ever changing Way...

[woodcarver]

For a chapter that recieves so much attention, I haven't read a single translation that doesn't get the point across.

[Michael Sternbach]

To each his own !

 

I find a kind of playfulness in the Ke-Fe positions.

 

道可道非恆道

 

Way can, Way cannot, Ever changing Way...

 

That sounds interesting...

 

Could you elaborate (especially for the sake of non-Chinese/non-sinologist readers of this thread)?

[dust]

For a chapter that recieves so much attention, I haven't read a single translation that doesn't get the point across.

That's good! As has been suggested elsewhere, perhaps we're overthinking things.. but I do tend to enjoy overthinking things

[dawei]

I find a kind of playfulness in the Ke-Fe positions.

 

道可道非恆道

 

Way can, Way cannot, Ever changing Way...

 

That sounds interesting...

 

Could you elaborate (especially for the sake of non-Chinese/non-sinologist readers of this thread)?

 

Ok... from one non-Chinese/non-sinologist to another

 

My long standing position is that the base meaning of the line is simple:

 

Dao [as source singularity] once Dao'ing [in manifest multiplicity] is not the absolute/eternal Dao.

 

Note: "Absolute" here is based on Heng from the older text. Those who use Chang often translate it as "Constant" which I think is only half of a picture.

 

Over time, I have found that the line itself is doing this action as well.

1. Ke-Fei = Can / Cannot. Similar to Shi-Fei (Yes / No) of the legalist or even Wu-You (non-existence / existence) of Laozi or This vs That of Zhuangzi.

2. Absolute Dao as singular is ever changing; Static-Singular / Ever Changing-Multiple

 

Thus, Dao results in THIS or Dao results in NOT-THIS (THAT), is the absolute ever changing Dao as the source.

 

I read an interesting blog which showed the origins of Ke as a Yang aspect (left side of a circle arising, starting) and Fei as a Yin aspect (right side of a circle, descending). The two sides are simply two sides of Xuan (玄) and at the turn around points (where they merge) it is singular (Dao) and cycle is Heng (absolute).

[Taoist Texts]

For a chapter that recieves so much attention, I haven't read a single translation that doesn't get the point across.

really;) and that point would be....?

[Michael Sternbach]

Ok... from one non-Chinese/non-sinologist to another

 

My long standing position is that the base meaning of the line is simple:

 

Dao [as source singularity] once Dao'ing [in manifest multiplicity] is not the absolute/eternal Dao.

 

Note: "Absolute" here is based on Heng from the older text. Those who use Chang often translate it as "Constant" which I think is only half of a picture.

 

Over time, I have found that the line itself is doing this action as well.

1. Ke-Fei = Can / Cannot. Similar to Shi-Fei (Yes / No) of the legalist or even Wu-You (non-existence / existence) of Laozi or This vs That of Zhuangzi.

2. Absolute Dao as singular is ever changing; Static-Singular / Ever Changing-Multiple

 

Thus, Dao results in THIS or Dao results in NOT-THIS (THAT), is the absolute ever changing Dao as the source.

 

I read an interesting blog which showed the origins of Ke as a Yang aspect (left side of a circle arising, starting) and Fei as a Yin aspect (right side of a circle, descending). The two sides are simply two sides of Xuan (玄) and at the turn around points (where they merge) it is singular (Dao) and cycle is Heng (absolute).

 

So your translation would run something like:

 

"The Dao that is manifest is not the absolute Dao."

 

Or am I missing out some subtlety?

 

Could you provide a link to that blog?

 

Thanks.

[dawei]

So your translation would run something like:

 

"The Dao that is manifest is not the absolute Dao."

 

Or am I missing out some subtlety?

 

In the past, I have made too much of a dichotomy/duality of Dao, buying into the idea of a Wu-state [non-existence] of Dao and a You-state [existence] of Dao.

 

Here, Dao is equated with ONE as well; but I now view Dao akin to non-existent emanation or coming forth from ONE. Maybe it is the dormant, potential blueprint for creation waking up...

 

 

I explained a little more here recently: (#21 and 26)

http://thetaobums.com/topic/36132-if-god-exists-has-he-always-created/?p=576845

 

 

I have slowly moved away from a dual-state picture to more of a linked, continuous chain as: All things originate in non-existence; Dao is the turn around point and thus is sourcecode and causality of the manifest world unfolding and returning. (The linked, continuous chain is something which Flowing Hands mentioned concerning Pre-heaven and Post-Heaven issues and I found it meshes with my newer picture)

 

Where you wrote "The Dao that is manifest" is maybe my older generalized idea. But how do we know the manifest world? Through observation/senses.

 

So maybe in the simplest form: The Dao'ing we observe in creation is not the absolute Dao.

 

We see but the outward working through creation. We are not viewing the absolute aspect yet but only one-half (which seems to put me back to my dualism but it is more like looking at Ice-form does not mean we see the Vapor-formless).

 

 

I actually like the second Dao as a verb (Dao'ing) to reveal the movement and unfolding.

Now I would explain that Dao is manifested/invested in creation but I think this is where one has to rightfully bring in the concepts of De (Dao's capacity/power/efficacious) and Ziran (self-so'ing naturalness) to round out the idea.

 

 

Getting back to, how do we know the manifest world: I think the later lines in Ch.1 show that what we know about the manifest world is simply through our senses and in most particularly, our sight.

 

To borrow from what dustybeijing wrote several posts earlier:

 

故恆無欲也，以觀其眇 So, free of desire, perceive the Unperceivable,

恆有欲也，以觀其所噭 Full of desire, perceive the manifest;

 

 

Yet this is a clue that we can peer into the unperceivable.... and there is a gateway to do so if you reach the turn around point.

 

 

Could you provide a link to that blog?

 

I mention it in a much earlier post here... but it is in chinese:

http://thetaobums.com/topic/19570-ttc-study-chapter-1-of-the-tao-te-ching/?p=403363

[Harmonious Emptiness]

See chapter 22 of The Chuang Tzu for more elucidation of chapter one:

 

 

At this point, Grand Purity asked No-End, "Do you understand the Way?"

"I don't understand it," said No-End.

Then he asked No-Action, and No-Action said, "I understand the Way."

"You say you understand the Way - is there some trick to it?"

"There is."

"What's the trick?"

No-Action said, "I understand that the Way can exalt things and can humble them; that it can bind them together and can cause them to disperse. This is the trick by which I understand the Way."

Grand Purity, having received these various answers, went and questioned No-Beginning, saying, "If this is how it is, then between No-End's declaration that he doesn't understand, and No-Action's declaration that he does, which is right and which is wrong?"

No-Beginning said, "Not to understand is profound; to understand is shallow. Not to understand is to be on the inside; to understand is to be on the outside."

Thereupon Grand Purity gazed up and sighed, saying, "Not to understand is to understand? To understand is not to understand? Who understands the understanding that does not understand?"

No-Beginning said, "The Way cannot be heard; heard, it is not the Way. The Way cannot be seen; seen, it is not the Way. The Way cannot be described; described, it is not the Way. That which gives form to the formed is itself formless - can you understand that? There is no name that fits the Way."

[dawei]

See chapter 22 of The Chuang Tzu for more elucidation of chapter one:

 

Very similar to the Huainanzi chapter 16:

 

chapter 16:

The po asked the hun: “What is the structure of the Way?”

The hun responded: “It takes nothing as its structure.”

The po asked: “Does nothing have a form?”

The hun responded: “It does not have anything.”

The po asked: “How can one obtain and hear nothing?”

The hun said: “One encounters it directly. If you look at it, it has no form; if you listen to it, it has no sound. It can be called the ‘obscure darkness.’ The ‘obscure darkness’ is how one refers to it, but it is not the Way.”

The po said: “I have obtained it.” He thereupon turned back to himself and looked inwardly.

The hun said: “In general, for those who obtain the Way, their form cannot be seen, the name cannot be grasped. Now, you still have a form and a name. How are you capable of the Way?”

The po said: “What use are words? I will return to my ancestor.”

The po turned back to look, but the hun suddenly could not be seen. The po turned back to his own existence, and then he also submerged himself in the formless.