Sign in to follow this  
Marblehead

[TTC Study] Chapter 59 of the Tao Teh Ching

Recommended Posts

Han Feizi also doesn't necessarily agree with you. (The following translation is mostly WK Liao's, but the blue part is improved by me, I think): O

 

yeah....i know... IMHO the commenters can not be trusted, like i said there was a paradigm shift cutting off the meaning. Just look at that paragraph in HFZ - there is a distinct feeling that the author is creating

 

Folk etymology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folk_etymology
Folk etymology, or pseudo-etymology, is change in a word or phrase over time resulting from the replacement of an unfamiliar form by a more familiar one

 

to suit his ends.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah....i know... IMHO the commenters can not be trusted, like i said there was a paradigm shift cutting off the meaning. Just look at that paragraph in HFZ - there is a distinct feeling that the author is creating

 

Folk etymology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folk_etymology
Folk etymology, or pseudo-etymology, is change in a word or phrase over time resulting from the replacement of an unfamiliar form by a more familiar one

 

to suit his ends.

 

And exactly an argument some might use to say why they like to go back to the GD and MWD to see what the characters were... the received version is a swiss cheese version, IMO. Wagner clearly demonstrated that Wang Bi's notes don't even agree with many sections of his supposed version... so someone tampered with the received as well... to suit their ends... but what he demonstrated was that it was a reversion to the HSG version in most cases.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my point was that limit here means some kind of a spatial border, which your quote bears out. The Heaven is limitless above, the mother of all empires is limitless below, a match that will last long.

 

True. But Han Feizi still seems to think that it means the person's limit, rather than the state's, no?

...and I've seen your new reply. Yes, I don't like his words, but he agrees with me, so.. ^_^

 

 

 

Yes, I agree that 服 seems to not be the original.

 

Henrick's "early submit" is based on 早服 , although his translation uses 早備. The first pair below does not have 備 in line 2 in the GD but most feel it is the same character as the next line pair reads. I also tend to feel he follows Han Feizi a little bit (early submit vs submit from the start);

 

Hendricks provides on comments on whether it should read "Prepare early" 早備 or "early submit" 早服, and in the end feels that "the characters were pronounced almost the same in antiquity"... so they could be a phonetic loan, as this is apparently the case in other Guodian texts (he names a few).

 

 

紿人事天莫若嗇

夫唯嗇是以早[]

是胃重積惪

 

I edited my previous post because I realized that the character does very much resemble 備. My homework was sloppy.

 

However, it also very much resembles 穫, so.... who knows??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps the ^^ shape that is common to both 禾- and 矢-based characters could have been confused at some point?

 

One more thing before I give this up: a list of ^^ (禾 or 艹) -related characters in the chapter:

 

嗇 穫 積 舊

 

Not including 莫若 of course because they come up a lot

 

So..anyway, I think it's about grain. But I don't disagree that it's not about grain. If you see what I mean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True. But Han Feizi still seems to think that it means the person's limit, rather than the state's, no?

 

IMO, Yes...and HSG seems to follow that as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And exactly an argument some might use to say why they like to go back to the GD and MWD to see what the characters were... the received version is a swiss cheese version, IMO. Wagner clearly demonstrated that Wang Bi's notes don't even agree with many sections of his supposed version... so someone tampered with the received as well... to suit their ends... but what he demonstrated was that it was a reversion to the HSG version in most cases.

This is why Li Erh decided to teach me his proper teachings back in 1986. "The meaning has got lost: here is the true teaching in English as near as I can get it". (Li Erh Xian Shi)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this