lienshan

"a spirit is oneness and everything but has spoken" was the contemporary definition of 神 I think, that Laozi knew this definition when he wrote this chapter 42 line: Everything carries Yin on the shoulder and embraces Yang. as a humorous commentary to: The return of the spirits and the light was a mutual assistence, because of that completing the yin and the yang.

The return of the heaven and the earth was a mutual assistence, because of that completing the spirits and the light. The return of the spirits and the light was a mutual assistence, because of that completing the yin and the yang. The character 神 that I've translated as "the spirits" is much schorlarly debated in this text. There's no contemporary dictionary available so the scholars have many different suggestions. I'm not a scholar so I read other contemporary texts written by someone with a similar point of view: 神也者妙萬物而為言者也 This is the opening line of the Shuo Gua §6 in the Book of Changes (I Ching). This is a clearcut, written around 325 BC, definition of what the character 神 meant at that time.

no worry, taoist monks have for more than 2000 years been puzzled by that line

A chapter "The Black Robes" of the Book of Rites was among the texts in the Guodian tomb, so we know for sure that the Tao Te Ching and the Book of Rites were more or less contemporary. My guess is, that the Ta Yi Sheng Shui cosmology is the taoist Huang Lao version of that version? There are also a taoist version and a confucian version in the Shuo Gua section of the Book of Change! The §1 of the Shuo Gua contains the characters 道德 Tao and Te The §2 of the Shuo Gua contains the characters 仁義 Benevolence and Righteousness

Yes, I've spent almost five years learning how to read the Warring States chinese written language, and I've today more problems with the modern english grammar than with ancient chinese grammar. Tao Te Ching chapter 42: Everything carry yin on their shoulders and embrace yang. What we carry on our shoulders and embrace are our children! The return of the spirits and the light was a mutual assistence, because of that completing the yin and the yang. That'll say Laozi refers to the paradox of Ta Yi Sheng Shui, that Yin and Yang are the two children of the spirits and the light. My interpretation of the next chapter 42 lines is that: The bath water and the Qi are considered an aggregation. People hate being orphaned, lonely, and unworthy. Yet Kings and Dukes call themselves such. relates to these two Ta Yi Sheng Shui lines: because of that completing the moistness and the dryness. The return of the moistness and the dryness was a mutual assistence, because: the moistness is the fine word and the bath water is the lousy word both meaning: the water the Qi is the fine word and the vapor is the lousy word both meaning: the air

If that's your opinion then it's not that lousy. He is to me a top 3 author ever! Or is that lousy?

The Great One gave birth to the water. The return of the water assisted the Great One, because of that completing the heaven. The heavenly return was a large assistence, because of that completing the earth. The return of the heaven and the earth was a mutual assistence, because of that completing the spirits and the light. The return of the spirits and the light was a mutual assistence, because of that completing the yin and the yang. The return of the yin and the yang was a mutual assistence, because of that completing the four seasons. The return of the four seasons was a mutual assistence, because of that completing the coldness and the hotness. The return of the coldness and the hotness was a mutual assistence, because of that completing the moistness and the dryness. The return of the moistness and the dryness was a mutual assistence, they completed a year and stopped. Consequently: Is a year what the moistness and the dryness gave birth to? Are the moistness and the dryness what the coldness and the hotness gave birth to? Are the coldness and the hotness what the four seasons gave birth to? Are the four seasons what the yin and the yang gave birth to? Are the yin and the yang what the spirits and the light gave birth to? Are the spirits and the light what the heaven and the earth gave birth to? Are the heaven and the earth what the Great One gave birth to? The last seven sentences are rethorical questions, because the object is placed before the subject in the syntax. I'll bet everything I have, that the author of this Guodian text is Laozi!

Laozi's duality: both, at the same time Tao bears 1 1 bears 2 2 bears 3 3 bears everything The above is the standard translation of the chapter 42 opening lines. There is an alternative translation based on dictionary possibilities: 一 means 1 / first / once 二 means 2 / second / twice 三 means 3 / third / trice Tao bearing once is the first born twice. The second bears a third; the trice born everything. It's two texts within one text; both at the same time! The first is a presentation of "The Great One" theory. The second is the arguementation against "The Great One" theory.

Since we are in the text-forum then let's talk the first part of "Ta Yi Sheng Shui"! There's a long list of dichotomies; first listed forewards and then listed reversed. The two most important, Yin - Yang and fluid - vapor, are listed in Laozi's chapter 42 I've lost the chinese version; could you show the characters in this tread, dawei? Then we could translate it, it's easy, so others can see what we are talking about.

The word DUALITY has naturally TWO modern English definitions: Dichotomy duality was the definition that Shen Dao preferred. Division into two usually contradicting parts. The phase of the moon, when half of the disk is illuminated. Yin and Yang, the fluid and the vapor. Wave-particle duality was the definition that Laozi preferred. The exhibition of both wavelike and particlelike properties by a single entity, as of both diffraction and linear propagation by light. "a tao or to tao" put in Laozi's own Words from chapter 1, line 1. Zhuangzi was either Zhuangzi or a butterfly dreaming, that it was Zhuangzi. Shen Dao invented "THE GREAT ONE" to make his definition work. Laozi's definition works as is.

My favourite 2-D drawing has in this connection always been Swans reflecting Elephants: This is the Picture of Zhuangzi not knowing if he is Zhuangzi or a butterfly dreaming that it is Zhuangzi? The danish scientist Niels Bohr proved, that Light is both waves and particles exactly at the same time, depending of the method one uses to messure it. My take on what's symbolizing Tao in the painting is the Lake.

When You say I and not Laozi, then I find Your logic structure very interesting!

You (and not Laozi) introduces "Heng Wu" and "Heng Yu" ... here's my explanation of the Mawangdui chapter 1 grammar: 恆無欲也 heng wu yu ye 恆有欲也 heng you yu ye The two 也 characters mark the three preceeding characters as subject noun phrases that'll say: The eternity and the nondesire / The eternity without desire The eternity and the desire / The eternity with Desire 道可道也非恆道也 The grammar of the first line is the standard formula X 也非 Y 也 it's X it isn't Y 可 marks the following character as a verb 非 marks the following character as a noun It's a tao or to tao it isn't the eternity and the tao

As individuals think and believe, so they are.

In philosophical terms I don't think the inner chapters of Chuang-tzu is particularly developed having a primitive notion of Tao which is closer to Shen Tao than Lao-tzu; and it lacks the philosophical maturity of the latter. Though as a book of mystical poetry the inner chapters of Chuang-tzu stands as a monumentally beautiful text.

You, Marplehead and I are three ordinary men, who need quoting each other to know what we refer to. Zhuangzi, Laozi and Shen Dao were taoist Masters, who know without knowing (put in short). Shen Dao represented the Huang Lao version of taoism. A caricature of that version is described in Laozi's "Ta Yi Sheng Shui" text (it's in the Guodian version). I read Zhuangzi's chapter 4 Yen Hui story as Zhuangzi's commentary to Laozi's "Ta Yi Sheng Shui" text. He says, that it doesn't work, and that the way to deal with tyrans is "the fasting of the heart-mind" way. Laozi listened to Zhuangzi's advice, dropped the "Ta Yi Sheng Shui" and wrote instead his chapter 42 Tao bears one, one bears two, two bears three, three bears everything etc. is Huang Lao put in short. But the chinese text can also be read the this way: Tao bearing once is the first born twice. The second bears a third; the trice born everything. That's my own way of reading the ancient texts and I respect that others read the texts in a different way.

Pulleyblank says in his "Outline of classical chinese grammar": In late Preclassical Chinese of the Shijing and the early Classical Chinese of the Zuozhuan and Guoyu, the exposure construction differed in an important way. A preposed object was repeated by a pronoun, usually zhi 之 or shi 是, placed in front of the verb instead of after it. That's just one concrete example of why the Tao Te Ching wasn't written around 500 BC but much later. But it was impossible to know before the Guodian text, written in the original language, was exavacated. I indicate in my 2 hypothesises that Zhuangzi is the old experienced Master and Laozi the young Master. The reason why is the way Zhuangzi choose the roles to concrete persons; always a little upside down. That'll say to place the young unexperienced Master Laozi in the role of Old Tan who teaches Confucius. If Laozi really had been older than Confucius, then Zhuangzi would have chosen another role to Laozi

342 BC was the earlist year that Shen Dao could have been teacher in the Jixia Academy in Qi. 312 BC was the year when the Guodian Tao Te Ching was burried near the Chu capitol Ying. In 2007, the Shanghai Museum published a collection of texts written on bamboo slips from the State of Chu including six bamboo slips with sayings of Shenzi (Shen Dao). Hypothesis 1: The inner chapter character Yen Hui is synonymous with Shen Dao. Hypothesis 2: The three men Shen Dao, Zhuangzi and Laozi were contemporaries. There are two Yen Hui stories in chapter 6. I read the first as a Zhuangzi commentary to Laozi's chapters 19-66-46 which was one single chapter in the Guodian Tao Te Ching. He compares the way it is written to a rapport from a funeral. I read the second as Zhuangzi showing Laozi how he would write a corresponding Shen Dao critique. Laozi listened to Zhuangzi's advice and cut the original chapter into three chapters ... and he too stole Zhuangzi's idea of linking Shen Dao to Confucius by using the words benevolence and righteousness when he rearranged the very important three first lines of chapter 19. The chinese character 益 summarizes Shen Dao's legalism: vantage - a superior position - benefit Laozi used this character twice in his three chapter 19 slogan lines. Zhuangzi used this character trice whenever Yen Hui said: 回益矣 (I'm making progress/I'm improving) ........................................................................................................ The third Yen Hui story in the inner chapters is in chapter 4 and is written after 334 BC Yen Hui wants to travel to Wei, where he wants to reform a very young tyrant ruler. Modern scholars disagree about when King Hui of Wei was succeeded by his son Xiang. Zhuangzi's story makes sense, if King Hui crowned his newborn son as King in 334 BC and kept his own title Marquess until he died in 319 BC.

An untraditional way to investigate if there is a relationship between Zhuangzi and Laozi is to compare their attitude towards to the legalist and taoist Shen Dao. Shen Dao was a teacher at the Jixia Academy in Qi during the reign of king Xuan (342-324 BC). His slogans were "The Great Tao", "Abandon knowledge" and "Reject the self". Here's a Shen Dao quote: If the worthy are subjected by the unworthy, it is because their quan 權 (authority/power) is light and their position is low. If the unworthy can be subjected by the worthy, it is because the quan of the latter is heavy and their position is honorable. When Yao was a commoner, he could not govern even three people; Jie, as the Son of Heaven, could bring chaos to the whole world. From this I know, that positions of power are sufficient to rely on, and that worthiness and wisdom are not worth yearning for. And here's a passage from the Confucius and Old Tan dialogue in the Zhuangzi chapter 22: Whether they have a long life or a short one, how much time separates them? In the scheme of things, it's no more than an instant, so how could anyone determine whether Yao or Jie was right or wrong? And here's a passage from the Confucius and Old Tan dialogue in the Zhuangzi chapter 12: Being able to forget about those things and forget about the heavens - that would be called self-forgetting. Now you know what to look for in the inner chapters which you know much better than I do. The Yan Hui story in Zhuangzi's chapter 6 might correspond to Laozi's chapter 19

Was Laozi drunk, when he wrote chapter 19, or are Taoist Masters really stupid?

I'll start with the easy one, your theme 2: Laozi used specific examples from nature in his chapter 66 to tell, how a taoist should behave towards other people: a valley, a stream, a river and the sea are all from nature. Your theme 3 points at one of Laozi's headlines: The useful is what isn't there, what is there is useless. It's what is there that causes desire, what isn't there doesn't cause desire. I'm sceptical to Zhuangzi's useless tree and cripple, because they are there, while the melon boat story matches Laozi's definition. The uselessness of the tree and the cripple is what Laozi calls: when beautifull comes into being then comes uglyness too, so to me it looks like Zhuangzi is mixing two approaches to the word useless. Your theme 4 depends on how one read and understand the last three lines of Laozi's chapter 42: What another has taught I teach as well: Tyrants never choose their deaths My take on it, father. The line in italic is a quote attributed to Confucius. I read and understand Laozi as being sarcastic! Your theme 5 descibes two different writing styles: Zhuangzi is telling fairytales using real people as characters. Laozi is argueing with real people by quoting them or using specific words, which are related to specific people. For example are Confucius, Mozi, Deng Xi, Hui Shi and Shen Dao easily identified in the exavacated versions of Tao Te Ching. Your theme 1 points at the fact, that Zhuangzi was a Shi, a wandering scholar, and therefore used the word to roam so many times. Laozi wasn't a Shi, a scholar, and roaming wasn't natural to him.

That's a great definition of wisdom; the one way communication. The Guodian line must therefore deal with knowledge; the two way communication: Forsake knowledge! Reject debate! And experience is according to many of the tread's contributers the word to use in the last line of chapter 41 What's forever enough: Enough experience is enough!

I rejected wisdom ... the Zen wisdom of a great master ... with an arguement pointing at the reality. I'm still ontread and not offtread: Reject wisdom! or Reject knowledge! or Reject experience! The character Laozi used could mean any of these three possiblities, but which one?

The deaf bedouin who lives in the middle of the Sahara desert needs a translation All known versions of Tao Te Ching are translations from the the pre-Qin classical chinese into Han-chinese. The Guodian version is a firsthand copy of some of the original manuscript; a mixture of completed chapters, drafts and notes. There're for example two versions of chapter 64 showing, that Laozi had a change of mind concerning sages, when he was replacing most of his oldfashioned 亡 (to lose) characters with the modern 無 (to not have) characters. I think that the first three lines of the Received chapter 19 version was editted and changed by Laozi himself: Forsake holiness! Reject wisdom! The people will benefit a hundredfold. Forsake benevolence! Reject righteousness! The people will return filial piety. Forsake opportuneness! Reject vantage! The traitor and thief will be non-existent. Forsake wisdom! Reject debate! The people will benefit a hundredfold. Forsake opportuneness! Reject vantage! The traitor and thief will be non-existent. Forsake hypocrisy! Reject anxiety! The people will return to the youngest child. The last term of the Guodian version indicates filial piety but is too the name of the Zhou king Ji, who was the youngest son of King Tai. Sima Qian recorded that he and his son were both renowned for their wisdom and this reputation caused his elder brothers Taibo and Zhongyong to voluntarily renounce their claims on the throne and leave in exile to Wu. That'll say the term indicates, that the Shen Dao point of view was a strive for the throne. In the Guodian version are the chapters 19-66-46 (in that order) one single chapter! That'll say the conclussion concerning the three lines is at the bottom of chapter 46: There's no larger crime than extreme desire. There's no more sorrowful conflict than spoils sharing. There's no greater misfortune than not knowing when enough. What's forever enough: Enough knowledge is enough! Or should the last line be read as: What's forever enough: Enough experience is enough!

An interesting point of view ... please write a little more about that ... I'm very curious