lienshan

Thanks for your explanation. The Guodian pictograph is: and / with / together with / comrade / etc. etc. "cooperation", a unit of two or more components, seen with my own eyes. "or" doesn't express the connection expressed in the pictograph. "and" is maybe okey in english but is a poor translation of the pictograph.

You are not asked to compare but to choose e.g. which one to name "the overmuchness"? Either "a body" or "a treasure" from the term "a body with a treasure". Is "a body" similar to "the overmuchness" or is "a treasure" similar to "the overmuchness"? That'll say you are asked to choose between two possibilities three times.

Henricks took liberties using "or" and did thus miss the Guodian chapter 44 pointe A title with a body; which one is the intimateness? A body with a treasure; which one is the overmuchness? A gain with a loss; which one is the illness? The love of considerably is surely an expense of greatness and the store of greatly is surely a loss of overmuchness and therefore is to know sufficient harmless knowledge and to stop secures the ability to prolong the lineage. "A title with a body" is synonymous with "the son of Heaven"

Is "zi ran" equal to my own personal definition of the term? Is "natural" what I think is "natural"? That'll say nature is a subjective matter? Classical chinese language became Han chinese language and the Han scolars had to make changes in order to make Tao Teh Ching readable in the new language. That's why they inserted 治 (to rule) and omitted one of the 知 (to know). One can rule a 國 (the nation, the people)(subjective) and one cannot rule a 國 (the country, the land)(objective). Rethorical questions were in Classical chinese language made by reverting the subject and the predicate of a sentence. The two original sentences were two rethorical questions, while the two sentences of Received version are not reversed! That's why (之)國 is equal to 國 (the objective meaning) and 知國 is equal to 治 國 (the subjective meaning).

If Laozi did use sarchasm and you translate it as a cookbook of leadership then you do arrive at:

I found a solution to the mystery, that too works with your Received version The character 以 did always (omit) a 之 character in pre-Qin classical chinese: 故以知(之)國 知國之贼也 以不知(之)國 知國之德也 之國 meant the objective meaning of 國 that'll say: country, territory 國 meant the subjective meaning of 國 that'll say: nation, state, people I do still think, that Laozi was sarchastic to the confucian wanderers, the political situation had changed since he deceased, so my new shot is: Therefore, is it treason of the state knowledge to know the countries? Is it beneficence of the state knowledge to not know the countries?

These two lines are to me the most difficult to understand: John Wu: Therefore, he who governs his state with cleverness is its malefactor; But he who governs his state without resorting to cleverness is its benefactor. English/Feng: Rulers who try to use cleverness Cheat the country. Those who rule without cleverness Are a blessing to the land. Robert Henricks: As a result, to use knowledge to rule the state Is thievery of the state; To use ignorance to rule the state Is kindness to the state. ChiDragon: Therefore, if one was using crafty cleverness to rule a country, He would be considered as a bandit of the country. By not using crafty cleverness to rule a country, Then, it would be very fortunate for the country. GOOWDAY: So with his know to know the nation,It will be the thievery of the nation; With his not know to know the nation, It will be the DE of the nation. Laozi is sarchastic in own reading: To know the nation is the treason of knowing the nation. To not know the nation is the beneficence of knowing the nation. Because how is it possible to rule a nation that the ruler doesn't know?

The author of the Mawangdui A version, the characters above, changed several original characters into his own characters, so I am always sceptical to a character in this version, that is different to all the other versions. Here 曰 instead of 之 and 邦 instead of 國 so I prefer to read the B version: 故之为道者非以明民 也 将以愚之 也 民之难治 也 以其知 也 故以知國知國之贼 也 以不知國知國之德 也 The advantage of reading the exavacated texts compared to the Received versions are the grammatical 也 characters, because they tell how the other characters are structured in the syntax. The 也 characters do primary indicate noun clauses. I've indicated the noun clauses by () in the four sentences below: sentence 1: (故之为道者) 非以明民 sentence 2: (将以愚之) (民之难治) (以其知) sentence 3: (故以知國) 知國之贼 sentence 4: (以不知國) 知國之德 That'll say all characters in () are nouns or adjectives to the nouns! The sentences 1, 3, 4 have a preceeding subject noun clause, which verbs are the following characters 非, 知, 知 Sentence 2 is one of Laozi's many litteral pearls. I read the noun clause in the middle as a subordinate noun clause. Noun clauses are bound together by an implicit 'is' when put into english. I hope that you find something useful in the above. Good luck with your translation

the rest becomes walking then the walk becomes resting what is walking is a walk what is standing, sitting and staying is a rest there can never be a manifestation that is not manifested there can never be an emptiness that is not full

I do not want to drop my 'mind/ego' because someone hapless might pick it up But I feel the flow of your 'spin' when reading the Mawangdui version my way: The deceased forebear's wanderers are not the leader's enlightened people. The stupidity of an ahead leader, the made difficult ruling of the people, is their knowledge of leadership. To know the nation is the treason of knowing the nation. To not know the nation is the beneficence of knowing the nation. Common knowledge, that which pairs additional examination and rules, is the examinated rule of common knowledge. This is called to deepen the helpful depth of deep helpfulness indeed! Remoteness and indeed is the opposition of connected things and then the arrival at the obedience of the great. `

Hi Sinan I'm sure that you'll find much of what you are looking for here. Wellcome

I know, but I haven't yet figured out exactly why Laozi changed the Guodian A-version to the C-version? Thanks for your explanation. I respect it (not synonymous with an agreement)

'doing' being an action verb is preceeded by the negative bu and not the negative wu; that'll say bu wei means 'not doing' while wu wei means 'not a doing'. That a sage 'does nothing' or 'does not act' is not logic; even a 5 years old child is sceptical: Who buy his food in the shop? Doesn't a sage clip his nails? And why doesn't he drop his 3-in-1? A sage has not a doing might mean a sage isn't a job?

John Wu The Sage fusses over nothing and therefore spoils nothing. He grips at nothing and therefore loses nothing. English/Feng The sage does not act, and so is not defeated. He does not grasp and therefore does not lose. Robert Henricks Therefore the Sage does not act, And as a result, he doesn't ruin [things]; He does not hold on to [things], And as a result, he doesn't lose [things]; Robert Henricks (Guodian A) Therefore the Sage does nothing, and as a result he has no disasters; He holds on to nothing, and as a result he loses nothing. Robert Henricks (Guodian C) The Sage does nothing, and as a result he has no disasters; He holds on to nothing, and as a result he loses nothing. My own reading (Guodian C) The sage has not a doing. Therefore no loss no losing. The problem is to explain logically, why a sage doesn't lose it while a man does? Henrick's "does nothing" is "the feet on the table and relax" philosophy. John Wu places the "therefore" in the middle of the line; obvious a mistranslation. Feng/English do like John Wu but do too mistranslate "therefore" as "so"?

If Laozi would have wanted to say Therefore has the sage not a doing he would have written: gu sheng ren wu wei sheng ren wu wei means The sage has not a doing. shi yi sheng ren wu wei means Therefore has the holy man not a doing. sheng ren meaning sage is subjective sheng ren meaning holy man is objective The difference must have been important to Laozi since he removed shi yi from the C-version and did not replace it with gu that too mean Therefore (without an omitted zhi)

The concept is a steady line instead of the wellknown changing line. That'll say: The Huang Lao hexagrams had one steady line and five "changing lines". The Zhou Yi hexagrams had one changing line and five "steady lines". I prefer the last C-version in chinese, because Laozi editted it himself! In chinese: sheng ren wu wei All other versions: shi yi sheng ren wu wei The characters shi yi (therefore) omits a zhi character. A zhi character marks sheng ren (sage) as an objective phrase. Laozi's own edition without an omitted zhi character marks sheng ren as a subjective phrase according to general grammar rule. wu marks wei as a noun! That'll say either a doing or a being. It's boring boring grammar, but the line is very very important in Tao Teh Ching

The corresponding Guodian lines consist of two philosophical arguements; both in the typical Laozi formula: B of A is like D of C The changed clasp of its steadiness is like the changed 6th line of its not yet topline. The changed number 2 of its number 3 is like the changed walkability of its how many? What Laozi comments on in a humorous way is the chapter 1 paragraph 1 of the Shuo Gua; a Huang Lao ten wings text (paragraph 2 is the confucian similarity) of the I Ching: In the beginning, when the sage's written change was the dark help from spirit and insight and gave birth to milfoil, was number 3 heaven and number 2 earth, but rely on the numbers. Observe the movement from yin to yang then establish fortune telling brushing strokes from curved broken to bent straight and give birth to the 6th topline. Agreement is Dao and De of obeying logic. The righteousness of ruling logic is the empty male qi ending naturally by means of landing from command.

Chapter 64 is two chapters in the Guodian version, and the second of these two chapters is in two variations; Laozi rewrote the second chapter changing "chang wei" into "wu wei": He who is will lose it. He who holds will lose it. So the sage will lose doing it. Therefore disappear losing not lost. He who is will lose it. He who holds will lose it. The sage has no being. Therefore no loss no losing. The above edit is in classical chinese interesting seen from grammatical point of view but I will spare you for the details and instead stick to my own reading of these lines: The drunken one dropping his fourteenth glass of beer on the floor isn't the sage, but the man entitled the sage! A man is an objective existence while a sage is a subjective non existence.

I've translated the text from classical chinese into english so what's the problem? The Great One gives birth to water and the return of water assists the Great One thus completing heaven and the heavenly return is a big assistance thus completing earth. The return of heaven and earth mutually assist thus completing light and spirit. The return of light and spirit mutually assist thus completing yin and yang. The return of yin and yang mutually assist thus completing the four seasons. The return of the four seasons mutually assist thus completing freeze and boil. The return of freeze and boil mutually assist thus completing moisture and fluid. The return of moisture and fluid mutually assist thus completing time and end. Therefore: What's time is the birth of moisture and fluid. What's moisture and fluid is the birth of freeze and boil. What's freeze and boil and what's the four seasons is the birth of yin and yang. What's yin and yang is the birth of light and spirit. What's light and spirit is the birth of heaven and earth. What's heaven and earth is the birth of the Great One. This is why the Great One conceals physical water and moves physical seasons. ............................................. I've put in bold what in Da Yi Sheng Shui corresponds to the chapter 83 phrase "surplus": 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. That'll say put in short: end is like the birth of the Great One ............................................. The old teacher in the grave was according to the scholars teacher to crownprince Heng, who became Chu King Qing Xiang in 298 BC. His father King Huai became Chu king in 328 BC. The childish Guodian characters could have been brushed by a 10 years old pupil and the different childish hands brushing the Guodian texts belonged maybe to his younger brothers? That'll say the Guodian texts were probably dictated during the years 318 to 312 BC. That'll say Laozi's Tao Teh Ching manuscript was in the library of the Chu capitol Ying in 318 BC. How did it arrive there? Was the legendary gatekeeper from Ying; Or did Laozi die in Ying? If so, then he must have been either a Chu noble or have hold a high office position in Ying? He could have been the director of the library? His literary skills were in fact outstanding, despite the poor english translations, cutting his sentences into slices of 4-5 characters

They were digged up in Guodian 1993 (were buried 312 BC) but have until now been considered the last part of "the Great One gives birth to water"? I claim, that this socalled last part is in fact two chapters written by Laozi! I recognize his writing style and way of thinking; the basis of my story: The old teacher in the Guodian grave worked until he retired in the Chu capitol Ying 9 km southwards. His job had been to teach the royal children to write. He was interested in philosophy and he made his own private library (the Guodian bamboo slips) this way: He taught the royal Chu children in the royal library. He read aloud (dictated) from different books in the library and the children brushed his dictating word by word on bamboo slips. The dictating was only training and the brushed slips had as so no value, and the teacher kept them afterwards. Childish brushed characters of "the black robe" and other scripts from the royal Chu library ... and of Laozi's manuscript to Tao Teh Ching! That explaines, why there are two versions of chapter 64, where Laozi rewrote changing the term chang wei into wu wei. That explaines, why some of the chapters are full-editted literal pearls, better than the corresponding chapters of Received version, while others seem to be raw material not yet full-editted by Laozi. Like the difference between chapter 83 and chapter 82. And that explaines, why the order of the Guodian chapters isn't like the chapter order of Tao Teh Ching. Am I right or wrong? Tell me why chapter 83 isn't written by Laozi, if you think that I'm wrong? Tell me precisely what isn't "taoist philosophy" in my translation above of that chapter

Is the Numinous Luminous what is seen when looking into the ass of an holy cow?

In connection with drinking and walking isn't this a a better pick: A duality compared to _______ breathing not divided light compared to divided light is like breathing compared to an inhalation and an exhalation

A new low-calorie beer compared to drinking is like A way compared to walking is like A duality compared to _______ (my poor english lacks the word so please insert yourself the missing word)

Let's continue in this thread; 德(Te) inserted in the scheme: bu de = not helpful = de is defined as a "subjective" verb or adjective fu de = not beneficent = de is defined as an "objective" verb or adjective wu de = not a kindness = de is defined as a "subjective" noun fei de = not a beneficence = de is defined as an "objective" noun The specific english words are maybe not optimally, but express the content of 德(Te): The adjective/verb/noun "subjective" meaning and the adjective/verb/noun "objective" meaning.

Thanx for your enlightening answer, laughingblade! We are thus a duality :ninja: looking into the mystery of the mystery that Oneness consists of two words: 1. Great One 2. Numinous Luminous 3. Undivided Light Is there One Single explanation to the three Onenesses of two words? 1. The extra word is a scribal mistake done by a confucian scribe 2. The dictating holy sage was a true stutterer 3. Undivided Light is the reincarnation of Undivided Heavy `