dawei

I am providing that link so that others can look at variations if they are interested. The link provides it author's explanation. If we translate as "we" see a variation then we are no longer looking at another's example and variation. Not matter how you or I translate it, it will not be what the link is talking about. That would be like us changing the native scholar's text; then we're no longer looking at what the native scholar's wrote. People can decide if they want to look at other variations or not. I'll leave it at that.

I think this is a crutch concept. Dao is easy to understand. But Life is very good at distracting us from it. Most of life (about 99.9999% of it) was primitive time and understood Dao without any written word. I learned of Dao without any book. I call it life. When I first read the DDJ, I said.. duh... of course... tell me something new... I will say the DDJ helps to systematize and organize and conceptualize... and my brain likes this too... but nothing seems to replace direct experience with Dao. I accept that maybe many or most need the book to understand it or to get them on a path. If it were not left behind, the question would be irrelevant. But the process would be still there available to all who are in tune with it. Maybe your simply asking if the foreign document gets us in touch with nature? Maybe that is the sad truth... Ok. I think this is a useful question to probe as your specifically asking if the DDJ should be broken up and something else is made up(?)... In such a case, a distortion probably occurs of the original... but what arises is something new and that something new is a part of the process of Dao. I would no longer call it the DDJ but it seems to me it is a part of the process of Dao. I am not sure I understand your point here but would like to understand where you are going with it.

Here is Legge's translation online: http://oaks.nvg.org/ys1ra5.html Here is Bruce Watson's on Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Zhuangzi-Basic-Writings-Burton-Watson/dp/0231129599/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1359513482&sr=8-2&keywords=zhuang+zi A.C. Graham on Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/The-Inner-Chapters-Zhuangzi/dp/0872205819/ref=pd_sim_b_3 Roger Ames, more like a primer on how to read ZZ: http://www.amazon.com/Wandering-Zhuangzi-Chinese-Philosophy-Culture/dp/0791439224/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1359513670&sr=8-1&keywords=wandering+at+ease Others: http://www.amazon.com/Zhuangzi-Longman-Library-Primary-Philosophy/dp/0321273567/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1359513979&sr=8-7&keywords=zhuangzi http://www.amazon.com/Zhuangzi-Library-Chinese-Classics-Chinese-English/dp/7543820870/ref=sr_1_11?ie=UTF8&qid=1359513979&sr=8-11&keywords=zhuangzi Chan wrote a small section in his must-own opus "A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy": Chan, Wing-Tsit (1963). A Source Book In Chinese Philosophy. USA: Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-01964-9. Some chapters by Derek Lin: http://www.truetao.org/chuang/home.htm

I thought this was about you sharing what the Native Scholars said in this book... So I am trying to extract some understanding of what they said about the chapter. Just share what they said. If they did not compare such punctuation differences, then just say so. If they ignored other variations, then just say so. I am asking what THEY SAID about such things. Maybe you need to prefix what is from the native scholars [NS] and ChiDragon [CD]. You just need to tell us what is from [NS] book... if you add your own personal comments, then it is [CD] talking...

You may be on to something about such appearances vs disappearances of gods and men... Not sure if that is an analogy to this topic or another topic to discuss... but something about it resonates

Oh... they considered this? Set Two 1. 道,可道，非常道。 2. 名,可名，非常名。 Very cool... I would like to hear what the native scholars said beyond just " the second set with the additional comma did not effect the logic of the first set." Or is that all they said? Rejection of another idea in a flippant manner is not being harsh, it is simply not be thorough. I don't think we can appeal to culture experience for flippancy... or maybe we can. Ok. Let's accept that idea and move on...

I personally like the second set as it represents to me 'singularity arises in multiplicity'. But I know this is not what the native scholars had in mind. I accept the first set appears the most accurate and logical. You only claim proper chinese... but if this is ancient chinese without punctuation then we have to be careful to play a trump card of 'proper chinese'... and you didn't ask for what was their justification; only stated it is in error. This is not scholarly like. One should at least ask if there is any justification and then they can decide for themself... http://taichi-sayings.blogspot.com/2010/07/blog-post.html I don't want side track the topic with this... others can read it for themself and come to their own conclusions or decisions. I only want to point out that variations exist and justifications are provided. Make your own judgement in the end. Thanks for keeping this on track! moving on...

The phrase 'Celestial Master' comes from Zhuangzi... so that should settle it, yes? I would answer the first question YES but with explanation. Sima Qian (and his father) came up with the 'school of six'. But if you look at how he describes the Dao Jia, it takes the best from each of the other schools... What Sima really qualified was the Huang-Lao school of thought, as this was his personal inclination. So the classical Daoism of two books (maybe one or two more could be justified) but by this point it is a Political-Legalist-Philosophical Daoism. Now if we move on to the Celestial Masters as to the influences they had, it seems clear that my explanation above is not sufficient to show why a Daoist religious movement commenced. There is a Xian Dao (仙道)-daoist immortal, aspect missing... which had to come from somewhere that Sima Qian missed. I feel these are more 'under-ground' on some level. Shamanism, spirituality, alchemy, etc... coming out of the closet to finally form an organized religion under the banner (and appearance on a mountain) of Lao Zi.

I don't disagree with you... I am just saying that the Common Text has the same justification... but the "two" are simply different due to the punctuation. I am a stickler for details. I think your doing good so far. We agree much more than it may appear.... so far... I want to be fair here and I want to hear what the native scholar says. If there is general commentary or whatever. And you can keep plugging away with concepts and explanations.

1. 道可道，非常道。 2. 名可名，非常名。 1. 道,可道，非常道。 2. 名,可名，非常名。 1. 道可道非, 常道。 2. 名可名非, 常名。 If we compare possible variations on lines 1 and 2: The first set is poetically balanced. It is hard to improve on its simplicity. The second one has some interesting tie to lines 3 and 4 by setting off Dao, Wu, and You with a comma. The third set is an interesting argument I read which is compelling but very unorthodox. Nonetheless, it shows that people can find strong justification if their theory is supported. I am not sure we really change the meaning of the opening lines enough to push a strong justification but I do think the basic concepts should be known. 3. 無，名天地之始。 4. 有，名萬物之母。

A. I answer that in the previous post... meaning: There must be a reason the native scholar choose to change the common text. It is not enough to just say this is our logic. One should at least say why that is better than another's logic. But maybe that was not the native scholars approach and I'll be open to accept whatever they choose to explain or not. B. Parallelism, structure and rhythm is an important feature. But this argument is valid for the Received Text too... so they both can appeal to it. I was simply stating that the common text has a valid idea behind it... although, as I said, I actually don't agree with it.

I am not suggesting it; the text suggests it. AND it is the basis for the common text view. Later in lines 5 (common text) the formula for NAMES is repeated with DESIRES: Wu Yu and You Yu. Thus, the argument can be made that regardless of what word you put after Wu and You... it is the same comparison formula of 'two'... what the text is really comparing is states of Wu and You in the end... Ergo... the comma movement to the left most accurately reflects the 'two'. The same reductionist approach can be applied to Lines 1 and 2 for it's comma placement over say another comma placement. Ok.. so there... I made the comparative argument for why the Received Text is getting to the core comparison of the 'two'. It is quite possible that the native scholars do not really compare and prove why they do what they do. Do they justify why in comparison to the common view?

I don't think that is objective and scholarly enough... The TWO are obviously there in 3 and 4: Wu Ming and You Ming. You need to provide better justification than "where are the two?". I also take the lines in this meaning as the Received Text suggests but we are not doing due diligence if we can't even see what the common text shows and what most people translate based upon. We can't shirk away from dealing with what the common text also plainly would support ('two'). The common text might also suggest their support based on the fact that Ming is in line 2 of the text... And Line 2 is tied to line 1... so there is continuity... Honestly speaking, from a scholarly point of view, that is good support...

I would think the scholar would seek to understand the concepts in the chapter and book as a whole first... then use that understanding to see how the flow of a sentence reads towards conveying what meaning. Then apply commas to drive home the point as commas are only the last step in clarifying to others. The scholar himself understands it. So... it would be good to hear what is their justification for the comma placement. I have seen commas put in more variations then the two shown but they justify in lengthy explanation why. So, let the scholarly explanation and justification begin... And BTW: I am not against some of the comma placements shown.

But I learned that technique from you... you have done that plenty of times yourself. If others are truly confused by what I did, I think they'll let me know. For now, I do note that it confused you.

This is an english comprehension issue. I used the word 'correction' but if you understand the entire passage you will see it is not a correction in the way you think... it is a form of communicating a small difference while agreeing at some point. I did not change another's intended meaning. I showed where I agree to a large degree (minus one word). Thus I gave what would be MY intended meaning to the mind-set mentioned and the point of this thread . Finally you will see that I finished with an acknowledgement to HIS intended meaning. Which means, I understand him. And I have shared my thought so can understand me better (my mindset). This is basic communication and discussion. Everyone has a right to discussion.

I do think we run some risk once we go down any definition of an 'ism'... but I do think the fact is: Anyone can define their own 'ism' if they want to... it may not be how it started out or where it turns when it hits Europe either... But this is just the 'ism' problem; how to define itself. I see it differently when we get to an understanding of something more universal like Dao or Wu Wei. While there is mystical paradox at play, the meaning is more important than the words. Getting beyond a 'practice of words' is the key, IMO. At that point, there are no cultural-specific issues; it is simply an imbedded realization and understanding without words. In fact, words may be causing the problem as it side-tracks us from experiencing it.

I think it would be an interesting read and study here but I think the typical camps would be setup (purely philosophy vs meta-physical sides). But here is an online translation which could be the basis, by Giles: http://www.sacred-texts.com/tao/aow/index.htm I think this is a decent introduction: http://www.waikato.ac.nz/wfass/subjects/history/waimilhist/1998/suntzu.html Cleary's Book: http://books.google.com/books?id=trpSpjQjg_cC&pg=PA8&lpg=PA8&dq=the+art+of+war+is+taoist+text&source=bl&ots=6YhaSp68K8&sig=rB2snNeYgoZ1h1Q0o5WqLJra6KA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=lg4IUdmtEIum8QT_3IGoDw&ved=0CE0Q6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q=the%20art%20of%20war%20is%20taoist%20text&f=false

I think a list of related documents is good to note and there are others which could be added to the list above. But I think if we get stuck on 'when' did they each get considered as part of the Daozang then we may miss part of the point that they predate any idea of organizing texts (as a canon) under a school of thought. The fact is, some of these texts may either pre-date or be very close to the time of Laozi (and Confucius)... and so they reflect that this thought is not suddenly emerging in a person or two (or a book or two). I would at least consider the following: 1. Other written material like Shenzi (from Chu) may pre-date Laozi and Laozi appears to borrow from it and Zhuangzi quotes him. Laozi makes references to 'past masters' and so we can assume some form of lineage of thought pre-exists. The proximity of the Wenzi is similar. 2. Liezi quotes from the "book of the yellow emperor" and we find the same quote for quote in Laozi... so previous text (or sayings probably existed). 3. The Tai Yi Sheng Shui cosmology text is the most complete and very early, found also in the Guodian bundles. It also has text which is almost line for line in the Laozi. 4. The area of Chu would be a worthy study (as I think Scott-Bao Po) is doing... it appears rich in a tradition of Shamanistic thought and where Shenzi and Laozi originate. One should not overlook the Chu poet Qu Yuan who is about the same time of Laozi and where shamanism can be found in his writings. 5. The history of Wu, the female shaman, and it's connection to the prominence of a "Wu-state" in Laozi. 6. Archaeology clearly supports the primitive cultures use of dancing and meditation. The precuror to the "Dance of Yu" (Yu the great was considered a shaman). Mythology on Fuxi and others leading up to this period are important, IMO. I know that some take some stand on mixing in mythology but ancient cultures did not separate Myth and history; they are one for the purposes of understanding the meaning of the cosmos and the microcosm of the body and life. If we stop trying to define Daoism by the number of books and when it was started, and instead see it as starting in primitive cultures, then I think we see Daoism is more than a philosophy or book count. It is an unfolding of outcomes.

I learned more in those mountains than 10 years of reading I see Stig wrote some on Daojia and Daojiao. The terms do seem to predate Sima Qian. Let's not forget a very small point; that it was his father who started the histories and thus it was probably his father who began to systematize the 'school of six'... but that is a small point as the time frame is still about the same. But that other's used the phrases before the Daoist [proper], I hold the same position as Stig of a 'late campaign' to get themselves a label on some level. It was the Daoist who may of turned the meaning of Daoism in a distinct direction away form a more classical and broad usage. I agree about your point on 'distance'; While Dao is unchanged in the Way of its operation, it is ever-changing in its effect/outcomes; singularity gives rise to multiplicity. So the 'relevance for today' argument may be semantics: One side claiming singularity and other side multiplicity but they are really the same thing (or at least from the same source).

I agree to a degree. I accept that some will only taste Cabernet in order to understand Cabernet. And some will only taste California Red's to understand California Red's. I tend to be open to the idea that all Wine's offer something unique and there may could be something to learn by also tasting wines from Chile, Africa, and Europe... My palate is usually wide open for tasting. That is my nature. BUT, In the end, I will have tasted much of the 10,000 Wines raising and falling around the world. I won't be able to drink them all nor will I even like them all. When all is said and done, I do prefer certain varieties of Red's with subtle notes of vanilla and oak with a velvety soft tannin finish. "need careful examination by dedicated objective Chinese scholars." -- That is the only correction I would make to this line... but for the purposes of this thread, we have to accept your original line as that is the only choice. Maybe through the course of this, we could actually get some western scholar's opinion of the book.... meaning, maybe someone here will reach out to someone they know or we can research that angle... but I don't want to side-track the focus here on the text itself. This is just a side note.

Ok... glad you clarified with some examples. I taught soccer for many years and used The Art of War ideas... When my wife (chinese) saw me play ping pong the other day with another very good player she said, 'you guys are doing gong fu, not ping pong'... And chinese will say a taxi driver can be doing gong fu in his driving; or the butcher, etc. So I completely agree with what your laying out here as there is really no cultural barrier to this basic idea you present: using little dao to find big dao. To me, this is the 'way of life' aspect; it does not have to be culturally-specific. And you commented on the other issue which is a little more culturally -specific: If someone wants to practice energy work then they may be limited to cultures which have those practices. Or if someone wants to study Medical Qigong (as I have done a bit), then it gets more limiting as to the chances of finding someone that specialized. But I like how you show this comes out of cultures having a different view of the body, life force, etc. I tend to think the ideal is to have a 'way of life' is one's practice... I once joked that the only time we're not natural is when we practice. Once we stop practicing we can get back to being one with nature. But I do find that the more I practice the less I want it to be a practice.

You said to not get all heated up over western thinking. I think to keep to your title meaning (Scholastic Study), there should be no western bashing either. How about we stay objective and show respect like you asked. It could be as simple as, the book may be viewed as yet another commentary on the TTC. I don't think we're in a position to say why the entire world has not taken notice of this book. All we seem to be able to say is that the world does not seem to know about it or at least has not reviewed and written anything (to our knowledge) about it. While a link to the entire book is great, the bigger problem is going to be that nobody can try to copy the text if they wanted to look at this, or translate something, etc. So that means all the introduction or notes, etc are not accessible (or so I think). But a good start and look forward to seeing what you can share is under the hood of this book.

Hi Mark, Not sure if you prefer to discuss it at your site or here but it seems on topic here, so I'll continue. I would personally say there is at least one more time period before the Warring States, otherwise we have no continuity; it would be a kind of 'big bang' approach to say it all started from nothing... Not saying that is what your saying but any missing pre-state is suggestive to not having an influence. I tend to see it as evolving in stages in history like this: Primitive Naturalism > Divining and Mythology > Shamanism/Spiritualism > Political Philosophy > Alchemy > Religion > Dark Philosophy > Modern Philosophy I am in the camp which says there is no difference. I remember traveling through Sichuan and going to a few Daoist temples and we asked them to explain the difference between Dao Jia and Dao Jiao (often western-speak for Philosophical Daoism and Religious Daoism) and we always got the same answer; there is no difference... they are part of the whole. So while I hold this position, I came to the same conclusion that we may be missing the point of the discussion because what we do see in reality is a western (and even eastern) focus on the philosophy... but I think there are reasons which I won't go into since it may not matter for the here-and-now... But someone can take a hold of any stage of interest and 'focus' there if they wanted to. I do think it is a little like studying a part of history and maybe missing what leads up to that part and where it goes on, etc... but I think in the end, it is not prohibited to do. I will say that I see it much more like 3 or 4 dimensional than my example provides but it's a simple example to a dynamic issue.

Just realize it has nothing to do with western thinking... yet... this is purely a scholarly understanding of its background and exposure to the western world. If you are not aware of a single translation in english or any western scholarly peer review or papers, then that is ok to say. It is enough to just tell the truth as far as it is known. If nothing is known then that is a valid answer too. Present away.