lienshan

My approach to 'subjective' or 'objective' has something to do with this: 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.

And not-knowing knowing is a sickness. Knowing when enough is enough! That's his message in many chapters. Not-knowing is to not-know when enough. Knowing not-knowing when enough is the noble insight.

I read chapter 71 as Laozi's arguement against the Shen Dao slogan 'abandon knowledge'. 'ignorance' or 'no knowledge' is a sickness as the instance of raving, as when mad or delirious. Laozi regarded this as a matter of fact underlined by his use of the 矣 (!) perfect particles! The knowledge of ignorance is an exaltation! The ignorance of knowledge is a sickness! Therefore do sages (never sick) treat it (treat its sickness as a sickness). Therefore never sick. 知不知尚矣 不知知病矣 是以聖人之不病也以其病病也 是以不病 The character 以 did always omit 之 in classical chinese. The two last lines of the Mawangdui B version are thus (including) the omitted 之 characters: 是以(之)聖人,之不病也,以(之),其病病也, 是以(之)不病 The grammatical 也 characters mark two subordinate clauses: ,X, or (X) as in my translation. The characters 之不 together meant 'never' in classical pre-Qin chinese. The not-omitted 之 does not belong to the preceeding 是以聖人 but to the subordinate clause, because it would have been omitted if it did. Sorry that I am so detailed, but I think that this version seems to be very close to an original version. please read the 4th last scheme at the bottom of this page

Do you instead prefer his chapter 44 translation of 病(bing4) as meaning 'harmful'

The Mawangdui B version of chapter 71 知不知尚矣 不知知病矣 是以聖人之不病也以其病病也 是以不病 The knowledge of ignorance exalts indeed! The ignorance of knowledge sickens indeed! Therefore do sages (never sick) treat it (treat a sickness as a sickness). Therefore are they not sick.

How do you two explain Tao Teh Ching as a stand alone document, when the last line of chapter 32 cannot stand alone without knowledge of the first three lines of chapter 66 Why did the author write a stand alone document line referring to something written later on in the document ??? Something that the author had not written yet ??? Something that a reader has not yet read ???

I came across 'Four Seas' used in an very interesting way here: go to page 6 of 34 Within the four seas, (everyone's) xing is the same. That they use their minds differently is caused by teaching. xing = moral conduct

From year ? To year ?

Xunzi: Some men follow the model of the Early Kings in a fragmentary way, but they do not understand its guiding principles. Still their abilities are manifold, their memory great,1 and their experience and knowledge both varied and broad. They have initiated a theory for which they claim great antiquity, calling it the Five Processes Theory. Peculiar and unreasonable in the extreme, it lacks proper logical categories. Mysterious and enigmatic, it lacks a satisfactory theoretical basis. Esoteric and laconic in its statements, it lacks adequate explanations. To give their propositions a cloak of respectability and to win respect and veneration for them, they claim: 'These doctrines represent the genuine words of the gentleman of former times. Zisi provided the tune for them, and Mencius harmonized it.' The stupid, indecisive, deluded Ru of today enthusiastically welcome these notions unaware that they are false. They pass on what they have received, believing that, on account of these theories, Confucius and Zigong would be highly esteemed by later generations. It is in just this that they offend against Zisi and Mencius.

These two (no 28 and no 29) of his texts are about Teh 德 and Tao 道 : 夫德 精微而不見聰明而不發 是故外物不累其內 The 德 essence is small and doesn't see intelligent light and doesn't send out. Therefore does the outside matter not involve its inside. 夫道 所以使賢無奈不肖何也 所以使智無奈愚何也 若此則謂之道勝矣 The 道 what use send virtue, has no how not look like what? what use send knowledge, has no how foolish what? You can only call it called 道 is better than indeed! Shen Dao or Shenzi is mentioned in Zhuangzi chapter 33 and his writings were thought lost. The Shanghai museum has in 2007 published some exavacated bamboo slips written by him.

What I miss is the Shen Dao text on the bamboo slips published by the Shanghai Museum. I thought, that The Chinese Text Project's 'Shenzi' was this text but it isn't

The Mawangdui B version of chapter 70: 吾言 易知也 易行也 而天下 莫之能知也 莫之能行也 My words are what's easy to practice of what's easy to know. You in the world is what no one is able to practice of what no one is able to know. The Mawangdui A version of chapter 70: 吾言 甚易知也 甚易行也 而人 莫之能知也 莫之能行也 My words are what's very easy to practice of what's very easy to know. But a man is what no one is able to practice of what no one is able to know. The A version has in the first line two extra 甚 'very' which mark the following 易 as 'easy' and not as 'change'. The A version has in the second line 人 instead of 天下 The syntax of the line is what's called 'the exposure of the object' equal to 'the underlining of the object'. The object is placed in the front of the sentence and is repeated by 之 preceeding the verb by general rule: 而人 莫之能知也 莫之能行也 is equal to 而 莫人能知也 莫人能行也 The syntax of the B version is the same and that's why I choose 'you in the world' as the object translation. The alternative treating only 天下 'in the world' as the object seems wrong gramatically, because I think that an object meaning 'the world' would be expressed 天地 (heaven and earth). My reading is: That one person's words can reach everybody but everybody can't meet this one person in person. What counts is thus 'who you are' and not 'what you are' e.g. what clothes you wear. The clothes were very important in the confucian philosophy as symboles of the rites. This chapter 70 might relate to 'Black Robes', one of the Guodian bamboo slips texts?

莫 means 'no one' but your mind registrated the contradiction! Henricks translated the Mawangdui B version of chapter 70, here in my way of breaking the lines: 吾言 易知也 易行也 而天下 莫之能知也 莫之能行也 The 也 characters mark primary 'noun clauses' and secondary 'verb clauses'. 吾言 means 'my words' 而天下 could be read as 'your world' because 而 too meant the pronoun 'you, your' in classical chinese. A 'quick' alternative litteral translation of the first lines: My words are what's easy to practice of what's easy to know. Your world is what no one is able to practice of what no one is able to know.

I've never read this chapter, but a quick look at the above tells me, that all the translations are selfcontradicting and must be wrong

Sit down on a sunny day facing north and then watch your shadow

The beginning of the Mawangdui chapter 49 viewed with fresh eyes Holy men always have not use for hearts. The hearts of the common people act hearts. Goodness is the bad of the good ones, just like Teh of the good ones is a good one. It looks very strange at first sight, but read this quote from WU XING (5 moral conducts): Benevolence from the inner heart is a virtuous conduct and not from is a common behavior. Justice from the inner heart is a virtuous conduct and not from is a common behavior. Propriety from the inner heart is a virtuous conduct and not from is a common behavior. Wisdom from the inner heart is a virtuous conduct and not from is a common behavior. Holiness from the inner heart is a virtuous conduct and not from is a common behavior. All these five parts can be called Teh. Four parts together can be called goodness. Laozi's pointe is that holy men, sages, possess the fifth virtuous conduct 'Holiness' per definition, just like the common people doesn't possess 'Holiness' per definition. WU XING was one of the exavacated Guodian bamboo slips texts. WU XING was too one of the exavacated Mawangdui silk texts. Confucius's grandson Zisi (481-402BC) is considered the author.

Three or more translations is a great help to the not-reading-chinese readers Xunzi (312-230BC) described Shen Dao or Shenzi in his "Against 12 philosophers" book 6 no 5: Some men honor the principle of law but are themselves without law. They deprecate the principle of "following along with the usages of the past" and are fond of innovation. They obtain a hearing from the ruling class and a following among the unsophisticated. On every occasion their doctrines are perfected in form, well-composed, and fully documented, but if one turns around and closely examines what they say, it turns out to be masterfully grandiose but to lack any basic theme or main topic to which it returns. It is impossible for them to provide a classical norm for the state or to fix social distinctions. Nonetheless some of what they advocate has a rational basis, and their statements have perfect logic, enough indeed to deceive and mislead the ignorant masses. Such men are Shen Dao and Tian Pian.

Physically: The 100 mountainvalleys symbolize the people above and in the front. The river bed symbolizes the speech of the sage below the people. The sea bed symbolizes the body of the sage behind the people. The music of the world advances but not disliked, because it doesn't invade. Therefore the inability to engage in the world warfare. 'The music' symbolizes the water. 'advances' that it is flowing.

That'll say never according to my own translation of the chapter 66 middle section. Ruling only oneself and therewith serving others is my way of reading these lines.

I understand your objection and try another shot: The tough yet injured is able to rule chaos. The head-in-the-clouds yet injured has no talent for ruling chaos. I have the feeling, that Shen Dao nicknames Laozi 'the head-in-the-clouds' refering to chapter 66, but am aware that I'm walking thin ice.

Let's hear what Shen Dao has to say about the subject: 勁而害能則亂也 雲能而害無能則亂也 The tough and vulnerable rules chaos. The head-in-the-clouds and hurt has no talent for ruling chaos. I have at least two reasons why I link this Shen Dao no 23 text to Laozi's chapter 66: 雲 means 'mountainstreams vapor' according to the Shuo Wen dictionary. 能 'able to, talent' do too occur more times in the beginning of chapter 66.

28 bamboo slips of the Guodian Tao Teh Ching bundle C was not bound together when exavacated. The bundle C contains six separate bamboo slips, which the non-taoist scholars have placed behind the socalled 'TaiYiShengShui' text, because they are not included in the other versions of Tao Teh Ching. But these six bamboo slips could as well originally have been in the front of the bundle C ... is the text written on these six bamboo slips written by Laozi? bamboo slip 9 Heaven and Dao value what's completed of weakness and naiveness by benefitting what's giving birth. To appreciate the hard of stabbing the strong is like to profit the soft of assisting the weak. bamboo slips 10 to 14 Below the soil is similar to the word earth. Above the air is similar to the word heaven. Dao is also their character; Early Dawn is their name. Why Dao follows what's duty surely rely on their name. Therefore is the duty completed and itself prolonged. That the sage follows duty does also rely on their name. Therefore is the merit completed and himself not boned. Heaven and earth are nominated side by side independently. Therefore perform their two boats in line not cultivated together. To administer heaven isn't enough because: The lowest height of west and north acts powerful. Earth and heaven are not enough: The highest low of east and south acts powerful. The moreover surplus from the lowest of the not enough from what's highest is like the moreover surplus from the highest of the not enough from what's lowest. What strikes me when translating is the structure of the two end-lines: B of A is like D of C. That's Laozi's favourite arguementation formula, that he used in many of his Tao Teh Ching chapters.

知足之為足 此恒足矣 The second part is easy; it's the first part of the line, that causes troubles. The line contains the same structure as the opening line of chapter 2: 天下皆 知美之為美 也 惡已 When everyone in the world knows the beautiful as beautiful, ugliness comes into being. (Henricks) Both 美 'beautiful' and 足 'enough' are adjectives. I think that mewtwo begins to realize why his wish with this thread is so hard to fullfill

足之 meaning 'enough made' is maybe the correct translation leading to: Knowledge enough-made (subject) does (verb) enough (object) Written classical chinese was a language with a very strange grammar. No wonder that it was modernized. Even the most highranking chinese scholars disagree about how to read and understand the ancient texts. TaiYiShengShui and Sarah Allan's comments to TaiYiShengShui PS. I'm more and more convinced, that all the TaiYiShengShui text is in fact three unknown Laozi chapters?