lienshan

North-West are female positions and South-East male positions according to my previous post. When so, then try look at the BaGua from an outside, north of the BaGua, facing south position: Trigram Earth is North - Naunet (female = broken topline towards the center) Trigram Water is West - Tefnut (female = broken topline towards the center) Trigram Heaven is South - Nun (male = whole topline towards the center) Trigram Fire is East - Shu (male = whole topline towards the center) The BaGua is seen from above and the moon symbolizing direction is counterclockwise, but the direction is naturally when the Bagua is seen from below: from the other side! It's difficult to explain, but try imagine that the BaGua is painted on a window glass.

I was surprized, when reading your post, but then found this 'papyrii from Dyn' quote: "... that breath of life which emerged from the throat of the Benu bird, the son of Re in whom Atum appeared in the primeval naught, infinity, darkness and nowhere." Nun is in the Ennead cosmogony equal to the primeval naught, infinity, darkness and nowhere. That'll say Nun is one with four 'characteristics'. Nun is in the Ogdoad cosmogony together with Naunet one of four 'elements' as the four above. That'll say Nun is one of eight; together with Naunet one out four 'elements'. 'characteristics' versus 'elements' seem to be the difference between the two cosmogonies? Isn't Thoth a later addition to the original Ogdoad cosmogony?

Oh I forgot tradition So I try another comparition: The Kings of the Zhou dynasty 1046-256 BC were entitled 'Son of Heaven' due to their 'Mandate of Heaven'. The Pharaoes of the fifth dynasty 2494-2314 were entitled 'Son of Ra'. Ra was a sungod becoming most important at that time, but declined at the end of the dynasty. Maybe because the Ogdoad became most popular in the socalled chaotic immidiate period until 2025 BC, when the dynasty was reunited under a strong Pharao again? The earliest known Ogdoad source is a 2350-2345 BC pyramid text. The connection between Ra and the Ogdoad can be considered an opposition: The sun is not primeval waters but born. The sun is not eternal space but limited. The sun is not infinite darknes but light. The sun is not quintessential invisibility but visibel. That'll say an opposition of what's manifested and what's not manifested.

The Bagua symbolizes a moonwalk when seen from the outside moving counterclockwise! The Ogdoad was worshipped in Khmun in Egypt between 2686 BC - 2134 BC Not much is known but here's some in an PDF article about Philo 20 BC - 50 AD The four pairs of the Ogdoad might symbolize new moon, first quarter, full moon, and third quarter, but which one is quintessential invisibility, infinite darkness, primeval waters, and eternal space?

Hi TenebrousMystery You're wellcome no matter how many horizons you have

I am the benu bird, the ba-soul of Ra. The one who leads the blessed to the underworld. The one who has Osiris return to earth. To do what his ka-spirit desires. The one who has people return to earth. To do what their ka-spirits desire.

If brave is to dare then one is killed. If brave is to not dare then one survives. This pairs someone favouring and someone hurt. The hatred of Heaven, who knows its cause? The first part of the chapter is about the consequences of being the King's favourite or not. The King spoken of is ofcourse the socalled 'Son of Heaven'. He is both the 'someone favouring' and the 'someone hurt'! Depending of the brave dare or not dare speak. The brave is favoured when the King feel pleased and killed when not. Who knows what pleases if the 'Son of Heaven' is the last Shang dynasty tyrant? The Shang 'Son of Heaven' named himself 'Perfect We' when saying 'I'. The Tao of Heaven isn't an individual like 'Perfect We'. It's not speaking like the perfect echo. It's not summoned like the self-invited. The misrepresenter of Heaven is immeasurable. The immeasurable is dismissed yet not missing. The second part is about the socalled 'Tao of Heaven' compared to the 'Son of Heaven'. It dismisses the immeasurable to a secondary status because the term isn't 'the Heaven of Tao'! Heaven's superiority to Tao is marked with a 之 character in the term 天之道 The immeasurable misrepresenter of Heaven = Tao but the Heaven's net fairytale seems to please the majority?

The Mawangdui B version If brave is to dare then one is killed. If brave is to not dare then one survives. This pairs someone favouring and someone hurt. The hatred of Heaven, who knows its cause? The Tao of Heaven isn't an individual like 'Perfect We'. It's not speaking like the perfect echo. It's not summoned like the self-invited. The misrepresenter of Heaven is immeasurable. The immeasurable is dismissed yet not missing. 善朕 'Perfect We' was how the Shang King and later the Qin emperor said 'I'

There's a logical problem with your translation: Why is 'brave because of daring' slaughtered? Why is 'brave because of not daring' surviving? Who slaughters who and who survives is by purpose not obvious in my own translation, because nobody knows if the slaughtered corpse belonged to a brave daring or a brave not daring? The next characters occur as a Lao Dan quote in Liezi: 老聃語關尹曰：" 天之所惡 孰知其故 " Interesting to read how the quoted line was interpreted in ancient times; the next lines: It's called to wellcome the theory of a Heaven. To evaluate beneficial and harmful is not as good as stopping in time.

The tricky character is 於 usual meaning 'in, at, on, from' relating to an object, but 敢 and 不 敢 are not objects. 於 does therefore here have another meaning e.g. the verbal 'to be, to exist': If brave is to dare then slaughtering. If brave is to not dare then surviving. That'll say 'brave' is to not do?

Hi nhwanderer Wellcome on board

The Mawangdui B version If the people lacks respect being respect, then a great respect will indeed occur. It will not restrict its sleep. It will not occupy its wake. There will be nothing occupied. Therefore is it not occupying. Therefore is the sage's private knowledge (you impersonal seen) a private love (you impersonal valued). Therefore give up surrender and conquer this. 'respect being respect' refers to a Confucius quote 'king being king, minister being minister, etc. etc.' If the people lacks the confucian way of respect, then it will get Laozi's great respect.

Scientists said on Thursday they recorded particles travelling faster than light a finding that could overturn one of Einstein's fundamental laws of the universe. A total of 15,000 beams of neutrinos were fired over a period of three years from CERN towards Gran Sasso 730 (500 miles) km away. Light would have covered the distance in around 2.4 thousandths of a second, but the neutrinos took 60 nanoseconds less than light beams would have taken.

There are two versions of the first line: The Received 8 characters and the Mawangdui 11 characters. Both are probably interpretations of the meaning and understanding of the individual: the ancient editors!

It has something to do with karma; the law of cause and effect; niyama: Therefore, if causality is to be preserved, one of the consequences of special relativity is that no information signal or material object can travel faster than light in a vacuum. I think, that most buddhists are chocked by the breaking news

'The people' is an abstract collective term. 'Fear' and 'respect' are emotions felt by a single human being. It's therefore not logically but totally nonsense to translate 'The people fear'

猒 occur three times and must thus be considered a key-word of the chapter. ........ meaning 'to be satiated' / 'to alternate' and it is in Shuo Wen dictionary equal to: ........ meaning 'to eat to the full' / 'surfeited' / 'satisfied' / 'fully' / 'to the full'

The Mawangdui B version: 民之不畏畏 則大畏將至矣 毌狹其所居 毌猒其所生 夫唯弗猒 是以不猒 是以聖人自知 而不自見也 自愛 而不自貴也 故去罷而取此 The people does never treat a fear as a fear (even when a great fear is on the horizon). It doesn't restrict its sleep. It doesn't occupy its wake. Humans exclusively aren't occupied. Therefore is it not occupying. Therefore is the private knowledge of a sage (you impersonal seen) a private love (you impersonal valued). Therefore give up surrender and conquer this. What looks interesting to me are the three negatives preceeding the same character: 毌猒 translated 'doesn't occupy' 弗猒 translated 'aren't occupied' 不猒 translated 'isn't occupying' 毌 and 亡 became together the modern 無 around 400-300 BC according to professor Edwin G. Pulleyblank, so it's interesting to see the ancient 毌 used in this chapter. It's hard to believe, that the Mawangdui editors replaced 無 with 毌 so it looks like being the original character, changed to 無 in the Received version of the chapter.

The Guodian line has only one 有 while the other versions have two 有有 creating two lines: 天下之物生於有 有生於亡 The things of the world originate in being, And being originates in nonbeing. So what had been a chapter about 'Tao & now', became a chapter about 'Tao & manifested & not manifested'. The change was caused by 於 loosing its 'non-object' function in Qin/Han dynasty times.

The Manifest is not objective reality when put in past-time: The traditionalist reconstructed Tao. The newcomer is about to use Tao. The matter of the world gave birth to had been born to not being. The Mystery can we speak of when you open the chapter 72 discussion

It's about your two favourite characters 有 'to have/to be' and 亡 almost equal to 無 'to not have'. Manifested and not manifested ... but the character 於 marks 有 as 'not manifested'/'non-object'? That's why I try solve the problem by translating the verb 有 in past time: 'have had/have been'. But he does too have a pointe with the newcomer and future-time, that I still can't see ...

於 is one of the most requently used functional words in old Chinese. Semantically, 於 can be seen as a marker of "non-patient" roles, and it can introduce various nominal elements related to the verb except for typical patient. Syntactically, 於 can be seen as a marker of "non-object" constituents, and all the nominal elements introduced by 於 can not be analyzed as objects. The existence of 於 shows that the distinction between objects and non-objects was critical in old Chinese. The above quote caused a change of mind concerning my Guodian translation: 返也 者道動也 弱也 者道之用也 天下之物生於有生於亡 The traditionalist reconstructed Tao. The newcomer is about to use Tao. The matter of the world gave birth to had been born to not being. The first 於 in line 3 marks 有 as a "non-object". So I have instead of 有 meaning 'existence' (objective) chosen past-time 'have had' as "non-objective".