lienshan

If I ask any 4 years old children in the world about the six Qi, they will tell me about rain, wind, night, day, but not about Yin and Yang. The four first are experienced by all, while the two latter must be learned. The socalled 'six Qi' are thus not 'self explanatory' as 'phenomenons of Nature'.

Your 'self explanatory' seems not to fit with your Tao Teh Ching chapter 42 translation

"holy man" isn't a collection, when considered the man himself. An answer in the affirmative is, when praising the man! "holy man" in the second line is objective, "the man" praised. "holy man" in the first line is considered "the man himself" ... isn't considering a self subjective? or what's the difference between "the man" and "the man himself"?

Or did James Legge translate 知 as "intelligence" instead of "knowledge"? Oops ... one more question

My chinese text was not copied correct so: 人之道云不足而奉又 余夫孰能又余 而以取奉於天者唯又者乎 余 was the ancient King's way of saying I (indicates singularis) 朕 was the ancient King's way of saying I (We) (indicates pluralis) 余夫 'I and men' underlines the contrast between one and everybody. My approach to this discussion of the term 'holy man' or 'sage' emits from studying the two different chapters 64 in the Guodian Tao The Ching: The early bundle A version and the later bundle C version. Laozi had a change of mind and rewrote the chapter 64. His main edition was: from 是以聖人亡為 (bundle A) to 聖人無為 (bundle C) The change from 亡為 to 無為 tells, that bundle A is the earlier, because Laozi wrote 'wu wei' 亡為 as in five other instances, while 'wu wei' written 無為 tells, that bundle C is written later in his timeline. But he did too omit 是以 'Therefore' in front of 聖人 'sage' ... Why? There was in pre-Qin chinese two ways of writing 'Therefore': 是以 (indicating the following as objective) and 故 (indicating the following as subjective). Was 'a sage' an objective or a subjective term to the elderly Laozi? The Received version of chapter 64 has the earlier 是以 before 聖人 so his doubt came first out in the daylight, when the Guodian Tao Teh Ching was exavacated in 1993 and published in 1998

The relevant Mawangdui B chapter 77 text: 人之道云不足而奉又 余夫孰能又余 而以取奉於天者唯又道者乎 The Tao of Man posesses not enough and receives additionally. I and men, which one is gifted with an additional I similar to a received gift from the Heaven and only addition is the Tao? It's very different from the Received version and the other Mawangdui A version. The variouis editors must have had great problems with understanding the original text.

六氣之辯 the eloquence of the six qi (chi) Your 'good old days' called my attention and the above is my litteral translation of the corresponding chinese characters in Zhuangzi. Qi (chi) is not my business so I checked Chun Qui Zuo Zhuan for an warring states time definition of the 'six qi' term: 天有六氣 .... 六氣曰 陰 陽 風 雨 晦 明 也 Heaven has six qi .... the six qi are called yin, yang, wind, rain, night, day. Chun Qui Zuo Zhuan is a confucian text. I do not know if Zhuangzi's had other sources?

I've never read this text before, so I do as when reading a thriller ... jump down to the last line to find out ... who is the murderer: 此小大之辨也 Like this the disputation of the small greats! 辨 was a disputation between two scholars at royal courts. 辨 occurs in the very first line of the Guodian Tao Teh Ching: Abandon knowledge and sever disputation. But I should maybe read the looong text before I begin posting in this thread

The Mawangdui B version The trustworthy word isn't pleasingly and the pleasing word isn't trustworthily. The intelligent one isn't excessively and the excessive one isn't intelligently. The good one isn't additionally and the additional one isn't good. "holy man" isn't a collection, when considered the man himself. An answer in the affirmative is, when praising the man! Oneself answering in the affirmative is additionally. Therefore: Tao of Heaven benefits to and doesn't harm. Tao of Man is on the side of and not opposed. The subject of the Mawangdui B version is the term "holy man". "man" is the trustworthy word, the intelligent one, the good one. "holy" is the pleasing word, the excessive one, the additional one. Your question is in fact a matter of double-wording or not? Zhuangzi deals with the subject in a passage of his chapter 6: 夫卜梁倚有聖人之才而無聖人之道 我有聖人之道而無聖人之才 There was Bu-liang Yi who had the talent of a holy man, but not the Tao of a holy man, while I had the Tao of a holy man, but not the talent of a holy man. The pointe is, that 'a man having Tao' is per definition 'a holy man'! 'A holy man having Tao' is double-wording that'll say 'holy' praises 'a man having Tao'.

水善利萬物而不爭 (the Received chapter 8) 'doesn't strive' 水善利萬物而有爭 (the Mawangdui chapter 8) 'is opposed' 聖人之道為而不爭 (the Received chapter 81) 'doesn't strive' 人之道為而弗爭 (the Mawangdui chapter 81) 'not opposed' 'to strive' is the subjective meaning of 爭 indicated by the negative 不 'not' 'to oppose' is the objective meaning of 爭 indicated by the negative 弗 'not' and the verb 有 'to be, to have' The coverb 為 is usual translated 'to act' or 'to be'. According to prof. Pulleyblank does 為 as a full verb mean 'support, be on the side of'. That seems to function with the last line of both the Received and the Mawangdui version: The Tao of the sage supports and doesn't strive. The Tao of man is on the side of and not opposed.

Laozi's writing style is in my opinion by purpose 'muddled'. Other pre-Qin texts are much easier to read and translate, because 'philosophical' authors usual try their best to write as clear as possible, so their readers can understand, what they explain. But that was obviously not Laozi's intention and that's why I don't read and translate his texts as recipes in a cookbook. Every one of his chapters has its context and it's here to me expressed in the last line: The Tao of Man is acted and unspoken. What still isn't clear to me is, why he wrote 為 'acted' and not 無為 (wu wei) And how it influence the interpretation of the Received version's: The Tao of the Holy Man is acted and unspoken.

The Shuo Wen definition : 博 : 大通也 从十, 从尃, 尃布也 'broad' makes no sense in the context while a 'loud announcment' word like 'boasting' does, because the very last term of the whole chapter is 'not argued' indicating not spoken.

He used three words 'reliable' 'wise' 'good' together meaning 'holy' These three words are contrasted by three non-synonymous words but not antagonists: 'pleasing' 'boasting' 'overstating' together maybe meaning .... 'man'

'the informed' is maybe the poor heir-at-law inheriting the property

Words aren't 'beautiful' unless we are talking calligraphy. The character 美 has the secondary meaning 'pleasing' that fit better into the context. When I tell a woman, that she is beautiful, then she might think that the word is trustworthy, but might too suspect, that it's pleasing? The character 博 means according to the ancient Shuo Wen dictionary: 'ten sellers of silk loudly spamming their wares at a marketplace'. I choose to translate it 'to boast' but there is probably a better pick in english? The only different character of the first six lines is: The Mawangdui version's 多 meaning 'much, many, an exaggeration, double-wording' The Received version's 辯 meaning 'to discuss, a dispute between two scholars' The latter is Heshang Gong's pick leading to an 'how to do' interpretation like Twinner's. The first is maybe not the original character, who knows, but leads to an examination of the term 聖人 'holy man, sage'. I suppose that none on this forum has ever met an holy man/woman or a sage? And I suppose, that Laozi would have mentioned a meeting somewhere in at least one of his 81 chapters, if he had met a sage irl? So in my reading of this chapter is the word 聖 'holy' in focus. Is it pleasing? Is it boasting? Is it an overstatement?

Thanks for your compliment to my translation

The Mawangdui B version The trustworthy word isn't pleasingly and the pleasing word isn't trustworthily. The intelligent one isn't excessively and the excessive one isn't intelligently. The good one isn't additionally and the additional one isn't good. 'holy man' isn't a collection, when considered the man himself. An answer in the affirmative is, when praising the man! Oneself answering in the affirmative is additionally. Therefore: Tao of Heaven benefits to and doesn't harm. Tao of Man is on the side of and not opposed. 'holy man' 聖人 in line 4 is usual translated 'sage' but it doesn't work here, where Laozi deals with the term itself consisting of two characters. (e.g. the trustworthy word 'man' and the pleasing word 'holy') The Mawangdui B version has only 人 'Man' in the last line, where the Received versions have 聖人

Ohio, Champaign county, on a road east west according to the shadow That corresponds to the chinese map (south is above and north below) where the left front 無 wheel of the tractor is named 'The Unmanifest':

Do not trust your feelings ... stick to the written words! That's his message in this chapter

All characters in red are "out of context" that'll say a textual additon to the Guodian chapter 63 To say "out of context" is tricky because nobody knows if Laozi himself made the addition? I've myself no problem with reading the chapter 79 without "native scholarly" additions: Peace and great resentment surely have surplus resentment. How can one be considered good? Therefore does the sage keep the debit entry yet not in debt to a man. One has Teh managing a debit entry. One has no Teh managing an oral contract. The Tao of heaven has no preference. It does always go along with good men.

It's seemingly the white (Yang) picnicbasket below his right (Yang) leg that maintains the balance

The last lines of Shuo Yuan 10.24 collected by Liu Xiang 77-6 BC : His large river and yellow river lead that which are 100 mountainstreams using their humble below. The Tao of heaven has no preference. It's always along with good men. Be aware! Be aware! Confucius did earlier tell the disciples: "Remember! This doctrine is only mean and focus on the feeling of duty. We should be very careful, as if we were on the brink of a deep gulf, as if we were treading on thin ice. Walk the road like this. Doesn't openmouthed meet misfortune?" Interesting to see a confucian bibliographer point to Tao Teh Ching chapter 66 and quote the two last lines of chapter 79, which seem to have been the most painful to the confucian asses Laozi defines the term 'a good man' in his chapter 27: 善人者不善人之師 - that which is a good man is the teacher of a not good man 不善人者善人之資 - that which is a not good man is the property of a good man That'll say 'a good man' is subjective

Do you look at the Bagua from the Inside or from the Outside? If you look from the Outside, then do four neighbors have a whole top line, and four other neighbors have a broken top line. A whole top line symbolizes light to the right and a broken top line darkness to the right: The Ogdoad had too eigth symbols. Four frogheaded powers equal to light to the right of the moon, and four snakeheaded powers equal to darkness to the right of the moon. The frog- and snakeheaded were named and like the trigrams of the Bagua arranged in four counterpairs: Nun & Naunet = primeval waters Kuk & Kauket = infinite darkness Heh & Hauhet = eternal space Amun & Amaunet = quintessential invisibility

A simple start could be having a look at this GREAT scheme: There are four elements and the fifth is yourself looking at the scheme.