dust

我以后只要浏览 Taoist Textual Studies 了... 和其他人谈论这些事太TM费劲儿

See my previous post.. but yes I don't think the word 'scholar' is the best, at least not in the way we use the term these days http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=scholar&searchmode=none In times past, a scholar was someone who learnt about things that they wanted to learn about. No more. Not the kind of 'scholar' we have now, where someone diligently practices studying difficult things in order to be well-known for studying difficult things. OK, but 士 and 侍 are 2 different characters, right? Originally, 士 = 手持大斧作战的武夫 -- it's still basically the original ideogram of a warrior holding an axe 人 + 寺 = 侍 -- person + temple/worship = 'butler' I don't want to start getting into Japanese history..but Laozi predates samurai by a long way..

From a linguistic perspective, 士 doesn't mean sage. If Laozi uses a different word, we should translate it as a different word, right? The question is, did he mean scholar, student, nobleman, warrior...? I think he simply meant someone who is trying to learn. Not a student of a specific subject, or a great scholar, but simply someone who, like us, is trying to figure the world out. Exactly my thinking. We see this all the time, don't we?

No, dammit 勤 as "diligent" means that he works hard.... is that because he finds it difficult? I don't think anyone disagrees greatly on this line. The middle one is in the middle. But what's the reason for the laugh? Not because Tao seems easy to him?

OK. We have 3 completely differing interpretations! I won't say any are wrong...but I still prefer mine. And Marbles's. Awright Agreed that the chapter is in 2 parts, but I think they connect very easily if we consider a common connection: what is bright seems dirty; what is clever seems stupid... Sure. Any interpretation so far for the reason for this laughter seems possible.. OK good.. but doesn't this mean that the laugh in that text is specified at respectful/awed, whereas the laugh in this chapter isn't specified as anything but 大 ? A word can be a command, but surely there are lots of words that could be used as "command" ? 令 / 命 is used often in the GD

But that's not a "correct" translation... besides the fact that it's not even the text's original title. I'm sure this forum has been through this many times, but a better translation would be "The Classic of Dao and De". Feel free to define Dao and De how you like, but if you do it within Laozi's own use of the terms, there's no way De = power, in any sense of the word.

From your general understanding, though, would you say that my interpretation is consistent with Laozi? You must have something more to say!!

Well, "speak now or I'll stop paying attention because I've already got an answer that I'm happy with", anyway I gotta disagree that it "shines through".. maybe it glints occasionally, but that might just be by accident Firstly, what is the command of Dao? Secondly, instead of 其中 (which most likely refers to the 上士) why wouldn't he simply say 行於中士 ? I don't think you actually read this...!! The full paragraph is about King You trying to make his concubine laugh. So yeah she's laughing, but in delight. I'm not sure what 夙 means but it doesn't seem to mean 'awe' Why? Why translate 道 as "hierarchy of command" ??

Before I bang the gavel on my participation in this discussion, does anyone have any evidence or idea that contradicts this interpretation? Anything that honestly makes more sense than this?

I looked this thread up because of some odd stuff I've been reading on the forum recently. There seems to be some kind of weird superiority complex among many 'Taoists' on here. Mighty Huns rising up in a dominant display of challenge-meeting and job-doing? The best-educated of any generation? If this is the Taoism, Taoism has nothing to do with LZ and ZZ. Almost everything they say is in direct opposition to these grand ideas about great power and knowledge. Yes. I was wondering if anyone had actually read the text. This chapter is not all that hard to comprehend. The translations are all pretty good. "臣之所好者道也，進乎技矣" "This servant cares only for the Way, which goes beyond skill" "方今之時，臣以神遇，而不以目視，官知止而神欲行" "These days, this servant is guided by his spirit, and not with his eyes; senses and knowledge cease, and the spirit moves as it will" It's about going beyond skill; learning how to use one's intuition, one's entire being, to do something fully. Any butcher with a knife can "get the job done" by hacking the carcass into pieces. The cook is not concerned with getting the job done as much as doing the job. It's the process that's important to him. He gets lost in it. It's a reconnection with the Way. And when the process becomes the important thing, a good finished product is the inevitable result.

Seriously?

Can't really argue with that. There's obviously governance -- lots of talk of a ruler and 'the people'.. and the idea is for the ruler to be "skilled" at the Way, so... I suppose that would be a meritocracy, right? But then again, the ruler is supposed to control by leaving things alone. It could be that I'm the ruler, since I just go about leaving people to do as they wish.

I have a rudraksha mala. The energetic claims made about rudraksha seem unfounded to me. I've felt nothing from it. Its use as an aid in meditation/breathing is great, and it's very nice to look at, but nothing more funky than that. I'd be very very sceptical of anyone saying "Buy this it'll make your energy grow" No different to "health" companies claiming that their newest supplement will make you lose weight and gain muscle

Not sure that this is directly relevant to the Laozi itself...? edit: What I mean is, of course there was a class system. There's been one in every state throughout history, and there still is. That's how people work. But that doesn't mean that Taoism is, or Laozi was, concerned with implementing or maintaining some kind of ritualistic, birth-based hierarchy.

郭店 作爲天地萬物的公僕，永遠處於輔助的位置 郭店 將貞之以亡名之僕 = 無名的僕人 Can you occasionally make room for the fact that the GD is often different to the received version, and that it might be able to tell us something useful? Anyway, if this is 樸 and not 僕, then there is no mention of servant or slave in the GD at all... so either way we never have the word servant used to rank people in terms of quality or birth

I wouldn't like to use the word 'class' But yes, LZ talks of ruler and ruled; the ruler is the lower Higher in Tao, lower in people's esteem Come to think of it, in the GD, the word "slave" or "servant" comes up in 2 spots: 道恒亡名 The Way is unidentifiable 僕唯妻 It serves all (32) 將貞之以亡名之僕 Pure like a nameless servant (37) ...and these are both referring to Tao

I did, for a while. I'm in the UK now. Yes.... but in any text, one also needs to look at each chapter in the context of the entire text in order to determine any conclusions. The TTC only makes sense as a whole if the themes are consistent from chapter to chapter. In the context of the text -- regarding Tao, and everything that LZ says -- we can conclude that: - the low surpasses the high (ch.66) - the weak and flexible surpasses the strong and rigid (ch.40,76,78) - full is not 'better' than empty (ch.11,45)

Could be, could be. My main issue is with the traditional interpretation that 上 means "wise" or "better" and 下 means "low" or "stupid" 1. This doesn't fit with the rest of the chapter -- the next lines are about bright being dim etc, so it's logical that the "low" scholar is in fact the more adept at Tao 2. It also doesn't fit with the rest of the TTC -- a number of chapters talk of being low, dim, and humble. Not high and mighty.

What 'job' are we talking about? Who's calling on them? Are we now celebrating Taoists as some kind of nomadic warmongers?

EVERY PREVIOUS TRANSLATION WAS WRONG. Sorry guys. Nailed it.

They might be laughing at it, but they might be laughing with it. 上士昏道堇能行於丌中 When a scholar of high learning hears of the Way, he finds difficulty walking in it, 中士昏道若昏若亡 When a scholar of middle learning hears of the Way, he is unsure, 下士昏道大笑之 When a scholar of low learning hears of the Way, he laughs aloud; 弗大笑不足以爲道矣 Without laughter there is not enough to follow the Way There's then a long list of contradictory phrases, e.g. the bright way seems hidden, great purity seems dirty What he's saying, I think, is that those of low learning find it easier to comprehend the Way..because their minds are not full of nonsense and fluffy ideas; good understanding of Dao seems like low learning Point of interest to anyone interested: The last slip of the chapter is missing at the bottom. There should be enough room for 8 characters, judging by the other slips, before it cuts off. Certainly there is not enough room for 11 more; but in the MWD and received, there are between 11 and 12 characters left in the chapter. So...which ones were originally on the GD slip? Did it cut the last 3-4 characters off? Did it use different characters? Or did they squeeze them all in (which would not be characteristic)?

Mr Feng said that But I kind of agree. 士 denotes a person of some regard, doesn't it?

Good question. I hadn't thought of that. Well, waddya know... this just happens to be next on my list of GD verses to translate. Perhaps it'll tell us something.

Wu, Legge, and Addiss all translate 士 as scholar. Feng translates as student. The character basically means a person of learning, with some status: a scholar (or originally a great warrior). That scholars exist is a fact. That Laozi calls some 上 and some 下 places judgement on their understanding of 道, no more. If Laozi was talking of people generally, dividing us into 3 classes, he would've used 民 or 人. Using 士, he's dividing only learned people, those who consider themselves scholars, and saying that some will 'get it' and some won't. And even if we translated 士 as 'men', all we'd have is classes of people divided based on their understanding of Tao -- not based on their birth or rank or even necessarily their intelligence.

Chapter 38? Failing Tao, man resorts to Virtue. Failing Virtue, man resorts to humanity. Failing humanity, man resorts to morality. Failing morality, man resorts to ceremony. Now, ceremony is the merest husk of faith and loyalty; It is the beginning of all confusion and disorder. This doesn't discriminate based on social background or intelligence or position or anything. It judges people, sure, but as a whole, and based on behaviour rather than title. It doesn't presume to say that slaves and peasants and peddlers and stupid people are incapable of virtue, or Tao, or being kind and "worthy".... edit: It also places morality and ceremony (actions, not people) at the bottom, whereas in the Wenzi here the fair, loyal, trustful, dutiful, and ritualistic (people, not actions) are placed in the middle.