dawei

To create your own form is to cheat any exam.... only your own examination of yourself is at stake.

I tend to agree with ChiDragon.... Heshang Gong is very mysterious in dating... but BCE is a candidate. Louis Komjathy has a chronology as follows: http://www.daoistcenter.org/chronology.pdf I don't think we'll come to any unanimous agreement and this shouldn't keep this from going forward.

IMO, they survive through a balance of power. The idea is that no one state becomes too strong. This occurs repeatedly as one state forges alliances and then there is a reaction to it. Wei dominated at one point but the rest realize they needed to fight a common cause to prevent the imbalance of power; which would keep them in the game. But your right... survival drives them; but balance of power is the outcome they seem as a temporary measure until they can get more power themself.

The OP mentioned Chu state vs Wei 魏 state in 343bc-340bc. I included the Qi intervenes the Wei / Zhao issue as it is similar but I am trying to confirm whether his comment on Chu-Wei is what I found: Chu intervenes the Qi- Wei issue. This might be said: "attack Qi to save Wei". Maintaining a balance of power was a very useful strategy.

I asked you a question here: http://thetaobums.com/topic/33848-about-zhuangzi/?p=527117

I think that the location I must of copied that from, that person was taking too much liberty in names (Liu Hui is not really proper). It is Emperor Huidi 惠帝, as you already have in front of Liu Ying: 2. 惠帝 - 劉盈 Liu2 ying2 194 – 188 BCE

I was quoting an author who pointed out that in Ch. 79, the MWD-A has 'right tally' and MWD-B has 'left tally'... MWD-A: 右 http://web.archive.org/web/20110514212730/http://home.pages.at/onkellotus/TTK/Chinese_Uni-MWD-A_TTK.html#Kap79 MWD-B: 左 http://web.archive.org/web/20110514205242/http://home.pages.at/onkellotus/TTK/Chinese_Uni-MWD-B_TTK.html#Kap79 Sorry, I am not trying to side track.

Your correct in using name taboo to help date them. So that can be used to help establish why MWD-B is considered later. As both use Seal Characters it does not quite date the MWD-B yet. What I found was this: This version avoids the taboo name of Liu Bang but does not avoid mentioning the name of Liu Hui, Emperor Huidi... thus, this can be even dated into time of Emperor Huidi or Empress Lu ! Another evidence of a latter date for MWD-B over MWD-A: The term “right tally” (you xie) in Text A in chapter 79 appears in Text B and the later editions as “left tally” (zuo xie). This change from “right tally” to “left tally” mirrors the Han culture, which prioritized the left side over the right side, compared to the more common practice in the Warring States period, which valued the right side over the left. - The Old Master

This is what you said so far: 1. 高祖 - 劉邦 Liu2 bang1 206 – 195 BCE 2. 惠帝 - 劉盈 Liu2 ying2 194 – 188 BCE 3. 馬王堆-乙本[MWD-B] 194 – 180 BCE; 隸書(Official Style); Unearthed:1973 prove that the MWD-B version of the TTC was written in the period of the Han Dynasty between the years of 劉邦(Liu2 bang1) 206 – 195 BCE. now your trying to really say is: Although the MWD-B version of the TTC was written in the period of the Han Dynasty between [Liu2 ying2] 194 – 188 BCE, it was written in 隸書(Official Style) which was the style that Liu2 Bang1 劉邦 206 – 195 BCE was adopted to. Based on dates, this does not have to even be stated as MWD-B is later than MWD-A... it MUST use the seal characters. As you write it incorrectly the first time (stating it was during 206-195, instead of saying during 194 – 188 BCE), It appeared as a typo. But now you've cleared it up as simply mixed up references to people and dates. carry on

Ok, I looked carefully and this is what I see: 2. 馬王堆-甲本[MWD-A] 206 – 195 BCE; 篆書(Seal style); Unearthed:1973 3. 馬王堆-乙本[MWD-B] 194 – 180 BCE; 隸書(Official Style); Unearthed:1973 Emperors of the Han Dynasty(206 BCE - AD220) 1. 高祖 - 劉邦 Liu2 bang1 206 – 195 BCE yet you wrote: The intention of this post is to prove that the MWD-B version of the TTC was written in the period of the Han Dynasty between the years of 劉邦(Liu2 bang1) 206 – 195 BCE. Sometime doesn't agree in what your writing.

The Li Shu was started prior to Han (attested by archeological finds of documents) and evolved and matured and eventually was the official script of the Han. But it was a simpler style suitable for bureaucracy. I think that is a typo, You mean MWD-A ?

A confucian-daoist-legalist... ergo, Huang-Laoist This is what Sima Qian (historian) describes as the quintessential daoist of his day.

Mark is pointing out a scholarly debate which reflects the idea that Lao Zi and Lao Dan are possibly two different people. If your unaware of such research then I can see why your trying to suggest he is confused... but I think he is stating an academic debated issue. It has been established that ZZ and even Confucius refers to someone named as Lao Dan... and at times others refer to someone named as Lao Zi. There is much debate if in fact there are two people or not. At least one source for those interested to read: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/laozi/

This is where Wagner's book(s) are really interesting... he has some charts to show how Wang Bi's received text compares to his notes and then compares to the various older manuscripts and one can then see the implication that he must of had varying sources (or manuscripts). Wang Bi was a Confucian... or a neo-daoist. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/neo-daoism/

The Laozi A is a bundle of 39 slips. Each strip is 32.3cm long. The marks indicating the location of the two string bindings are 13cm apart. The two ends of each strip are beveled.60 The script type is ―Warring States brush-written Chu-script‖ and the writing style is ―elaborate, regular, controlled. The handwriting on the strips is generally small and the characters written close together. According to Mattias Richter, two of the strips in the Laozi A (strips 5 and 6) are written in a different hand from the rest, marked by larger, more elaborate characters. Due to the flow of the content, however, he believes the two strips are meant to be included in the Laozi A. He suggests that perhaps the hand changed because those two strips had to be replaced (due to errors or damage) or that the scribe was replaced for a short while by someone else. Even taking into account the possibility of two hands in the Laozi A, the handwriting of the Laozi A is markedly different than that of the Laozi B or C. The Laozi B is a bundle of 18 slips. Each strip is 30.6cm long. The marks indicating the location of the two string bindings are also 13cm apart. The two ends of each strip are flat and squared.63 The script type, like the Laozi A, is ―Warring States brush-written Chu-script‖ and the writing style, like the Laozi A, is ―elaborate, regular, controlled. The handwriting of the Laozi B, however, is large and the characters are spaced farther apart than in the Laozi A. The handwriting is consistent throughout, suggesting it was written by a single scribe. The Laozi C is a bundle of 28 slips. Each strip is 26.5cm long. The marks indicating the location of the two string bindings are 10.8cm apart. The strips have flat, squared ends. The script type, like the Laozi A and B, is ―Warring States brush-written Chu-script‖ and the writing style, like the Laozi A and B, is ―elaborate, regular, controlled. The handwriting is uniform throughout, suggesting it was written by a single scribe. According to Peng Hao, the Laozi C was written by a single scribe, and not the same scribe that copied either Laozi A or B. However, when one looks to content, one sees that 14 strips have material from the received Laozi and 14 strips have material not found in the received Laozi. Due to this difference in content, this last bundle was separated out from the rest and subtitled the TYSS. However, there is no reason to believe that these strips were meant to be separated out from the rest of the bundle. See: https://circle.ubc.ca/bitstream/handle/2429/23748/ubc_2010_spring_lundin_ritchie_jennifer.pdf?sequence=3

Ok, I looked back at the history and the best I can piece together is as follows: In 354 BC, Wei started a large-scale attack on Zhao. By 353 BC, Zhao was losing and its capital, Handan, was under siege. The State of Qi intervened. The Qi decided to attack the Wei capital while the Wei army was tied up besieging Zhao. The strategy was a success; the Wei army hastily moved south to protect its capital, was caught on the road and decisively defeated at the Battle of Guiling. The battle is remembered in the second of the Thirty-Six Stratagems, "besiege Wei, save Zhao" meaning to attack a vulnerable spot to relieve pressure at another point. In 341 BC, Wei attacked Han. Qi allowed Han to be nearly defeated and then intervened. In the following year Qin attacked the weakened Wei. Finally, in 340, the threat to Wei became so severe that one of its great enemies, Chu, actually had to rush to its aid in order to avoid the destruction of Wei by Qi, which would have upset the balance of power disastrously. --- Is this the Chu involvement to help save Wei, not actually fight them?

A few significant items to add: 1. The Guodian Laozi on bamboo slips was written in Chu script prior to unification. Chu was considered the southern 'barbarians'. 2. The three bundles of texts which the Guodian Laozi was split among included many Confucian text; Thus, Laozi slept next to Kongzi as bed mates 3. Why just the 32 chapters, was this the desire of the teacher/tutor? There is a lot of support for this view 4. The major themes one expects when the DDJ is mentioned are missing or extremely rare from the Bamboo version: One, Water, Way of Heaven, female and general metaphysics. 5. The most ancient cosmology is found among the bundles which also mentions Dao but it is at a lower level of hierarchy. Guodian was a thriving center of the state of Chu in the Warring States period, only nine kilometers north of its capital Ying, and accordingly many tombs of the important personages of the state were constructed there. In October 1993, the provincial government authority launched an excavation in reaction to repeated tomb robberies, which resulted in an unexpected discovery of a large number of bamboo slips, more than seven hundred of which were covered with writing. After the excavation, these slips were divided into six groups, chiefly depending on their length. Three of them contained writings related to Laozi and have been labeled A, B, and C. Specifically, on thirty-nine slips in group A, which are each 32.3 cm long, passages related to nineteen chapters of Laozi were found; on eighteen slips in group B, which are each 30.6 cm long, passages related to eight chapters were found; and on fourteen slips in group C, which are each 26.5 cm long, passages related to five chapters were found. -- The Old Master A Syncretic Reading of the Laozi from the Mawangdui Text A. Guodian Laozi on Bamboo slips with word by word translation: http://www.daoisopen.com/GuodianLaozi.html

Maybe another thread if he doesn't want it in this thread. Might be interesting to see what evidence or passages or thoughts scholars have on it. I have tended towards a syncretic work but that Laozi is real.

Ah.. you pointed me over here and I choose you to respond to You are going to return to your true nature regardless of practice I mentioned Baopuzi in that other thread but in short: Practice is not natural. Practice is to achieve what is not natural for a man to achieve naturally...

From the Introduction to The Old Master: A Syncretic Reading of the Laozi from the Mawangdui Text A by Hongkyung Kim For example, I assert that Laozi should be recognized as a syncretic text before being labeled as a Daoist one, that it must have been completed sometime between 286 bce and the time when Text A was written, and that Laozi was compiled in the Qin, which many have viewed as typical of Legalist states. Also, I see Laozi as basically a political text, fitting to answer the prevailing question among intellectuals when it was completed, “How does one rule?” Robert Henricks has summarized the philosophical tendency among all the passages in the Guodian documents: the frequently discussed concepts in the Guodian documents are no-action, no-commitment, simplicity (“uncarved wood”), and self-sufficiency; only one of nine chapters appears that discuss the metaphysics of the Way; all sentences related to the metaphysical concept “One” are omitted; only one of six chapters appears that discuss the Way of heaven; chapters after chapter 66 do not appear; passages articulating the symbolism of infants and babies are missing; and passages uttering the symbolism of water and female rarely occur.51 In short, the Guodian documents lack a metaphysical perspective because core concepts in its metaphysics of the Way, such as the Way, One, and the Way of heaven, are not present. This aspect may need to be highlighted because I primarily view Laozi as a political text. http://books.google.com/books?id=9EW5rwv5FQoC&pg=PA11&lpg=PA11&dq=guodian+laozi+is+generally+missing+political+chapters&source=bl&ots=N-2dCjbYhm&sig=7CcMMTBvk3MTuN0VLadVFfuIqqI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=LQYMU9WACKKRygHgkYH4Cw&ved=0CDoQ6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q=guodian%20laozi%20is%20generally%20missing%20political%20chapters&f=false

~~~~ MOD WARNING ~~~~ Warning to Starjumper to curb the tongue's lightning ~~~~~ MOD OUT ~~~~~

~~~~ MOD WARNING ~~~~ Case in point. let the bickering go on both sides. And stop the accusations on both sides, and use of "Double Standard". ~~~~ MOD OUT ~~~

I personally have a headache to sift through the points being made. The only contradiction I saw is that you stated there is neither non-dual nor non-dual state; Gatito stated it is non-dual but agree there is no non-dual state. That is as close as I interpret embracing two sides (double standard). ~~~~~ MOD COMMENTS AND WARNING ~~~ As SJ is the OP, I want to respect this is his thread and he has stated what his topic is and he has every right to ask posters to stay on topic. He can try to manage that by explaining, ignoring, asking others to stay on topic or not post, and report posts. But the method of communicating the position of the points gets a little personal, accusatory and included other members who were meant to seem their years as a practitioner was for not. You can address the issues but you need to avoid addressing the member directly. I want the topic to stay open for discussion but will expect it to stay on topic and not get personal. And this would go for all involved. Thanks. ~~~~ MOD OUT ~~~~

~~~ MOD REQUEST ~~~ For now, I'll ask that you refrain from the repeated accusations. As a mod: I've asked you to explain you meaning and point. I already said I don't want to chase down other past threads. Can you share in simple words the double standard as you see it? ~~~ MOD OUT ~~~ Added Mod markers.

In order to understand your position: What is the double standard and logical fallacies you have mentioned several times in several posts. Forgive me for not researching historical explanations but I find myself here now and it seems easier to just ask it. Realize... I am not going to understand too much esoteric Buddhist jargon but I would like to understand your position as you see the 'double standard'. thanks.