lienshan

There's according to Pulleyblank exceptions where 之 is omitted; esspecially when syllables (same category of words supplementing each other; example yes and no). Holiness and Forsakenness are syllables, Benevolence and forsakenness are are syllables, but indigenousness and forsakenness aren't syllables. The character meaning indigenousness has another meaning, opportuneness, that is syllable with forsakenness! The three lines can thus too be read this way: The holiness of forsakenness rejects the wisdom, that the people will benefit a hundredfold. The benevolence of forsakenness rejects the righteousness, that the people will return filial piety. The opportuneness of forsakenness rejects the vantage, that the traitor and thief will be non-existent. That'll say the third line is about being at the right spot at the right time!

That's my way of paying respect to Laozi. I do my best to read what he wanted me to read. The translators contradict themselves; Laozi doesn't. An example: "the people will benefit a hundredfold" followed by "Reject benefit"? That was Laozi's way to tell us to read the same character in two different meanings! That's why I use the english word "vantage" that fits perfectly within the context: 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. Consider the three sentences as an humble envoy. Someone's command goes to someone from a subordinate position. To regard as matter is to guard as the substance of matter. A little selfishness is a few desires. The someone receiving Laozi's message is the traitor and thief Shen Dao If the worthy are subjected by the unworthy, it is because their authority is light and their position is low. If the unworthy can be subjected by the worthy, it is because the authority 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. (a Shen Dao quote)

There is not much divine in this chapter, so I don't think that this is Laozi's main target here. I try show the core of the chapter in the way I read the text: Forsake holiness! Reject wisdom! ........................ Forsake benevolence! Reject righteousness! .......................... Forsake indigenousness! Reject vantage! ........................... ................................................................... To regard as matter is to guard as the substance of matter. Little selfishness is few desires. I've put what isn't matter in bold and not the last word, that I read as meaning "the objects of longing".

I prefer fucking as the symptom cure One is never angry when in control. One cannot control the world so anger is a natural emotion. That'll say, the more one wants to control, the more anger.

I followed your wise advice and went out to play with the bookmaker gambling on some horseraces. Try guess what he said, you have two possibilities: Either: Forsake holyness!! Reject wisdom!! The win from lienshan is a hundredfold. Or: Forsake holyness!! Reject wisdom!! lienshan will win a hundredfold. Either: Forsake cleverness !! Reject wins!! Thieves will rob nothing. Or: Forsake cleverness !! Reject wins!! Thives and robbers will have no existence. The bookie is chinese and therefore a little difficult to understand: 盜賊無有 無 is e.g. either a negative particle (nothing) or a verb (have no existence)

a 之 between the words ( 巧之絕 ) would nomilize the noun 絕 "forsakenness" as the verb 絕 "forsakening" so one must choose to read it as either a noun or a verb depending of how one read it within the context. That's the challenge of this chapter! What makes sense and what is nonsense to you as the reader? To reject wisdom is nonsense to me. Shall I throw Tao Te Ching out of the window?

YES ... and thou succeded But thou are still only second to DragonsNectar69k who opened my eyes to read this: Forsake practice. Reject profit. The robbers and thieves disappear. The practice of forsakenness rejects the profit that the thieves will have nothing to rob. It's the same original chinese characters as in the exavacated Guodian Tao Te Ching. They can be read both as a statement and as the arguement against that statement.

The unknown author of I Ching + Niels Bohr + The unknown author of the Guodian Tao Te Ching

You're smack on! Here's the 'book smart' way of reading the three sentences: Forsake holiness. Reject wisdom. The profit of the people is a hundredfold. Forsake benevolence. Reject righteousness. The return of the people is filial piety. Forsake practice. Reject profit. The robbers and thieves disappear. And here's the 'down on earth' way of reading the three sentences: The holiness of forsakenness rejects the wisdom that the people will profit a hundredfold. The benevolence of forsakenness rejects the righteousness that the people will return to filial piety. The practice of forsakenness rejects the profit that the thieves will have nothing to rob. I've more problems with modern english grammar than with ancient chinese grammar, so I can ensure you, that both ways of reading the three sentences are grammatical correct. Technically: The second character of each sentence is both a verb and a noun (to forsake/the forsakenness) and likewise the thirdlast characters (to profit/the profit, to return to/the return, to rob/the robbers).

What you read as a verb (benefited) was meant to be read as a noun: Laozi used a famous Mozi quote: 民心百倍 the heart-mind of the people hundredfold but he replaced the graceful 心 heart-mind character with the lousy 利 profit character.

You have convinced me. The meaning of the character within the context is wisdom.

wisdom / knowledge If two persons, a wise man and a knowledgeable man, have an identical thought then: The wise man names his own thought knowledgeable and the other person's thought wise. The knowledgeable man names his own thought wise and the other person's thought knowledgeable. A person can forget his own thought and forsake another person's thought. A person cannot forsake his own thought and forget another person's thought. There are four possibilities: Forsake knowledge Forget wisdom Forsake wisdom Forget knowledge

Beck: discard cleverness Blackney: Put out the professors! Bynner: Rid of learning People Byrn: Forget about knowledge Chan: discard wisdom Cleary: abandon knowledge Crowley: If we forgot our wisdom Hansen: junk 'wisdom' LaFargue: throw away "Knowledge" Legge: If we could discard our wisdom Lindauer: toss out wisdom LinYutan: discard knowledge Mabry: abandon "intelligence" McDonald: discard knowledge Merel: If we could discard knowledge Mitchell: Throw away wisdom Muller: abandon "wisdom" Red Pine: Get rid of reason Ta-Kao: eject wisdom Walker: Give up knowledge Wieger: Reject prudence World: Quit distinguishing the wise and their wisdom Wu: abandon cleverness

Ancient warring states philosophy was expressed like math: the people + not a single command = self justice 天地相合也 以輸甘露 民莫之命而自均焉 Heaven and earth mutual united do contribute sweet dew. Isn't the people and not a single command then self justice? I live in a country where our beloved Queen uses not a single command and that works fine. US is ruled by a commanding leader ........... the text continues with 始制有名 名亦既有夫 The first established has a name. The accumulation of names already has the Man ... etc. Put into my own words: The accumulation of names = the people ( inclussive the leader) The first established = the leader = the Man ( 夫 respectful term for a man) The leader was still in Laozi's days the Son of Heaven, so 夫 was a lese majesty.

How is the people and not a single command similar to self justice? The alternative way of treating two connected nouns is nonsense because a people cannot command: How is not a single command of the people similar to self justice?

The Guodian chapter 19 is two texts within one text. Those knowing the Sheng Dao slogans: Forsake Knowledge Abandon Self read the text this way: Forsake knowledge. Reject debate. The profit of the people is a hundredfold. Forsake opportuneness. Reject vantage. The thieves and robbers disappear. Forsake hypocrisy. Reject anxiety. The people returns to the youngest child. Three slogans considered inadequate command someone in a subordinate position. The preferred uncolored of the inspected uncolored is the reduced desire of few grain still on stalks. Those knowing that to regard as matter is to guard the substance of matter read the text this way: The knowledge of forsakenness rejects the debate, that the people will profit a hundredfold. The opportuneness of forsakenness rejects the vantage, that the thieves will have nothing to rob. The hypocrisy of forsakenness rejects the anxiety, that the return of the people is the youngest child. Three sentenses considered a composition. Poor someone commands someone from a subordinate position. To regard as matter is to guard the substance of matter. Little selfishness is few desires. The Shanghai Museum published in 2007 a translation of some of Sheng Dao's exavacated writings: 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. The position is the keyword in the philosophy of Sheng Dao. That's why Laozi choose to write a two texts in one text. His trick is the characters 乎屬 meaning in a subordinate position or from a subordinate position, depending of the context. But the context depends of how one read ;絕 as the verb forsake or the noun forsakenness; both ways are grammatical correct, because his choice of characters has made it possible.

My taoist practice is reading the exavacated versions of Tao Te Ching for example chapter 51 The dignifying of Tao, what's the high-ranking Te, because nobody can ennoble it, thus all the time self-fulfilling, is Tao made bearing breeding elevating producing erecting poisoning raising returning. The message is the same as in his chapter 42 and in his TaYiShengShui: Worship anything else but Tao in your Home Taoist Altar practice.

The sentence is interrogative in the Guodian version: 民莫之命而自均焉 民 the people 莫之 not a single / no one 命 a command 而 similar to / like / and 自 self- (was always followed by a verb) 均 to be fair 焉 an interrogative-how, why, when, etc. I read 自均 as meaning self justice

Is your Home Taoist Altar a way of expressing Te / De / 德 in practice?

If you have the three books in the same size, then remove the three covers, and place the written pages in an inspiring wodden box . That's the ancient way of keeping bamboo books

The opening lines of the Mawangdui Tao Te Ching chapter 23 are: Hopes spoken self-fulfilling are: "The whirlwind might not last the morning out" "The cloudburst might end before the day is done" What causes these to happen? Heaven and earth as likely as being made earlier than one's big brother? Therefore ........... The last opening line refers to the paradoxes of the logicians; for example: I go to Yue today and come yesterday. Perhaps relying on a past-progressive tense for "come", indistinguishable from present tense in Classical Chinese. The logicans themselves explained their paradoxes this way: "On Names and Actualities" Heaven and earth participate in the things that they give birth to: all together are ‘things’. When a thing is taken as a thing according to what makes it a thing without excess, that is ‘actuality’. When actuality actually fulfills its character as actuality without deficiency, that is ‘occupying a position’. If one goes beyond that which is the character of a position, that is not occupying a position. To fulfill the position of one’s position is ‘correct’. To take what has been corrected to correct what has not been corrected is to introduce doubt about what has been corrected. What is corrected is the character of a position as actuality. To correct its character as actuality is to correct its name.

Another example of Laozi dealing with the logicians is the opening line of the Guodian chapter 15 古之善為士者必微妙玄達深不可識 Old people are good at studying that which surely is a microscopic oneness mysteriously arriving at an extremeness impossible to record. Laozi's nearsighted and farsighted joke refers to the title of one of the logician Deng Xi' works: What is without thickness cannot be piled up, yet its extension can cover 1000 li. "without thickness" means a point (a dimensionless unit) which precedes all others. Its character is in the Guodian text 妙 that according to the dictionaries means "subtle". Laozi used too the character 妙 to express oneness in his chapter 1

the Neverchange is that you (I'm sorry) is going to die one day. I condole The Unchanging Truth of the Everchange

The last two charaters of the first line are 恆道 traditionally translated as "eternal Tao". 恆 means "eternal" in modern chinese but it had another meaning in Pre-Qin time. The change of meaning can be dated to Qin or very early Han time this way: 恆 is the name of hexagram 32 in the Book of Changes (I Ching). 恆我 "I/us" was the name of hexagram 32 in the exavacated Mawangdui version. Both "eternal I" and "eternal us" are pure nonsense. "independent I" and "independent us" make sense and match the chapter 25 endlines: man is ruled by earth earth is ruled by heaven heaven is ruled by Tao Tao is ruled by self-igniting 自燃 (zi ran) translated as "self-igniting" explained grammatically: 自 meant "self" and preceeded in pre-Qin chinese always a verb. 燃 meant as a verb "to burn/to ignite". Yeah ... I know that grammar is booooooring to most of you

I try to put the confucian all the time Eternity into the Mawangdui formula one: If it's Tao possible Tao, then it isn't the eternal Tao. If it's a name possible to name, then it isn't the Eternity named. The beginning of everything was not named. The Mother of everything is a name. Consequently: The Eternity was not desired, considering its singleness. The Eternity is a desire, considering her offsprings. It's a pair of the same origin, different words with the same meaning. They are the swing gates of the profound mystery and the oneness of the multitude. all the time Eternity is like eternal Tao what's called: a redundancy/pleonasm/tautology Put in short: saying the same thing twice The character meaning the swing gates is visualizing what a redundancy means.