dawei

I think it is good that it is mentioned that this is in the eyes of the chinese native scholars and is meant to convey their understanding of the characters and meaning of their version of the TTC. Part of any correction process will require understanding the section meaning. Thus, the corrections are in the favor of their understanding. I think this is reasonable and is the norm as one can see this in past versions (Heshang Gong or Wang Bi). I do not doubt the scholarly approach (or attempts) they made. So Question #1 which I think I raised (and if I didn't say it this clearly I do now), is: where is the western scholarship? All versions of the TTC have had countless reviews and comments and then translations. The Received version stands alone as having no western scholarly review, as far as I know... but I am glad to see this thread so we can clarify the exposure of the Received Text to the western scholars, or we will at least understand the depth of its obscurity. If it is the latter, then there can be various reasons for that but I don't care to speculate as that is another issue. The second Question posed above is on a readership level rather than a scholarship one... but I think they are linked and the former issue (I posed about lack of western scholarship) will reflect the lack of western readership. But I hope that both the original questions can be address as I think they are useful to get any possible background, and my issue may be addressed as well. I have actually seen links to the received text in past years but seem to recall there was actually more than one and that would confuse issues... but if there is actually more than one than it would be good to clarify if this is the case and which one is used as the basis of the thread. The trickiest part is getting the final meaning down into english which may not be what the native scholars had in mind; and it may not actually correspond to what they are saying or thinking... That will be one external influence once someone other than the native scholars do a translation. So we will then no longer have the native scholar text but someone else's translation (meaning and understanding) of the native scholars Received Version. Thanks for the thread.

The problem may be where to find american equivalence of qigong so easily? It would seem that finding a martial art or qigong practice is not that hard but most are eastern based. If one wants to explore energy work, I am sure there are western alternatives out there but how to find it and validate it's background? (rhetorical for the most part). Do you have a link to Kirkland's paper on this? Would be interesting to read as not many talk about Chu Daoism which seems to me to be the furthest back we can trace it. I think this is a good point. I would say that one need only look internally; get connected to their innate at the bottom and empty/open their upper chamber. But I think the challenge is that this can be not easy to do as self-taught practices and some things may be dangerous when pursued wrong. Maybe this is similar to the American Taoist concept but your saying, I think, an American Taoist Practice concept (?). But this is as a practice and not as a way of life idea.

And that is why it was called the Warring State Period? Unless you meant that the TTC talked of a time when people lived in peace... which would be past tense...

I am glad to see this consolidated here. I am not sure I have figured out myself what is this idea of an 'American Taoist' or not... it's a label in the end and labels define and are usually inherently self-limit. But I recall the exchange where Marblehead was asked if he was a materialist or taoist, as the questioner said one could not be both: And Marblehead rightly answered; both... This would be classical thinking eastern-style; Both/And instead of Either/Or. So in this way, if this was a glimpse of the American Taoist .... to borrow from Burger King's slogan ('have it your way'): To be a taoist your own way... because Americans want to follow their own drumbeat and not be told what they can or cannot do... I don't see this as any different than what a classical taoist was supposed to be; Following their own Way; That is Zi Ran joined at the hip with Wu Wei. This was applied to Confucius [Way], Buddhist [Way], and then Daoist seemed to want to wrestle the idea as their label... So there is a classical precedent for using the term in any Way which might exist. If we compare it to Religious Daoism and ritual or alchemy or Xian Dao practices... of course we'll find differences. But I think I am still trying to see what is uniquely American Taoist still...

I agree... and IMO, because the text lost it's multi-faceted foundation it stood on. All the influences are ignored and we're left with a stale philosophical approach to understanding the text. While SB states in his Early Daoist Scriptures that "The Xiang'er is the earliest interpretation of the Laozi...", the very first comments on the Laozi come from Hanfeizi... a legalist! And the Baopo Zi and the Heshang Gong commentary took a more alchemy view of the Laozi. So early on, the various influences were well understood and the various parties (legalist, religious, alchemy/shaman) talked openly about its meaning. It seems to me that few want to understand or discuss the influences...

I am not sure if you realized this or not... but this is a western website. So it would be natural to expect western scholarship to weigh in so that those who want to read it in english can... I think that is perfectly reasonable. I accept that others may feel that hiding everything in chinese is ok. I am not about my own agenda or your's or ChiD's... but this site. What works best for the whole seems reasonable at a site like this so that more can think, learn, contribute, etc. I accept these limitations. thanks for sharing it. Now I understand more. I might guess you believe in 'philosophical taoism' as an idea... Sorry... for it, it is all one... together... we just see and experience different realms at times. If your stuck in the first one alone (and you've only really described one-physical), then that is just where things are. And that is ok.

I think the problem is less about whether trolling is to stay or not... and more about how to 'split topics' and remind people of the topic. It is a practical issue more than a vote issue. Regardless of the vote, there may not be any action; and if there is then action, one might ask why does it take a vote to do something which the common folks say is common sense? I might pose the question is: Should there be moderation action capable to split threads and move comments to new threads to keep stuff on topic. And is that moderation action in place and capable to do it without request by applying common sense.

I would say... as usually... the message is not understand... and personal goals are pushed forward... The request is to show the links and references and commentary and examination of the received text. Show us all the western links that exists to help the western world read the received text for itself. if we are only to read ChiDragon's translation of some secret text... then we are only reading ChiDragon's translation. The western world deserves to see the received text examined from a western scholarship point of view. Can you provide this instead of your own personal opinion and translation so others may research it?

SHOW ME WHERE IT IS AS AVAILABLE AND KNOWN AS WANG BI? It is more obscure than the Guodian... which is the oldest text. Why don't we stick to something more useful to discuss. You guys can start a thread about the received text... and reveal this foundation of youth to all. Give all the western links possible as the western world awaits your game of the 'received text'.

I gave my reasons. Show me westerners who have access to it as widely as Wang Bi... You forgot your own pragmatic advice. Your selectively ignoring or choosing to play some game as you seem wont to do. Not going to get sucked into this one either. Have you ever practiced anything beyond words? What is beyond the physical realm? I'll give you at least two realms: Energetic and Spiritual. When you and your scholars pay attention to all three realms, as Lao Zi did... then we will have something more to discuss as to my reasons... Hope your having fun.

There is so much in the post which could be commented on and possibly become other threads. I think we should try here to stick to DDJ10 as much as possible and I'll write you separately about other issues. One I'll ask off the bat is: Previously you have said that you have not personally written (or published?) comments on the DDJ chapters. Would you be interested doing this? Back to DDJ10: I wanted to ask about the "role of heaven"... I assume this is a microcosm to the role of the woman. Is there cosmological ideas which emerge here? Birth of the 10,000 and their ability to 'cling to their mother' ? And Dao Xin and the third eye opening to knowing all things. Is the final realization that our role is also that of Heaven, that of the woman?

And humbly To be fair, your sharing of such is the only understanding some might have about the 'received text'. Thanks. Ok... what is this thread about...

I think this was a second part to your point... In some ways, I would say yes... but I doubt this is the thread to really discuss the received text. I think most are unaware of it, its background, etc... If you did a thread on it, it would probably be very informative but I would not take non-participation as an issue as nobody really knows about it.

I rest my case... thank you counselor

I'll let the mod's deal with this... it has nothing to do with 'lumping together' but manipulating people's words. I have nothing to go on or by for who this secret group is and how they arrive at anything they have; whereever that secret text is kept too. They are so far removed from any understanding of 300 B.C. writing, how can they understand the time of Chu and what is the influences of those times? Ergo, I'll stick to the older texts. I don't know what your point is on this "American liberalism" and "American Taoist". Why don't you start a thread and explain your idea instead of repeating it in many threads. Yes, nothing sexual was implied... Is english your first or second language? Exactly where did I say I love Hendricks? You have the same comprehension problems as you relate above. I have no affinity for Hendrick and his translations. Although his works deserve something for their effort. It would be good if you stopped misrepresenting and misinterpreting words and stick to the discussion items. Hendricks choose his translation. So be it. I would agree that there is no reference of a sexual nature. I have been saying that. We can say it simply with as few words.

I appreciate the effort to keep things on topic.

Your lumping me with other people now more than once; Where am I shifting my goal posts? (I coached soccer for 20 years so I tend to not shift goal posts unless they are movable) . I understand you like to have fun with words but why not just ask questions instead of creating your own interpretation of another's words. I am against the "received text"; that is Chidragon's preferred text because it was done by native scholars and they are the one's he'll listen to. To his credit, he is honest enough to say this. I tend to appeal to the oldest texts, as I did here. So it would be much better to address people and your charges clearly as you mixing people in their sources. As to: "At any rate, how do you read "sexual organ of an innocent child fully extended" into 朘作 ? " Because it is a legitimate gloss. It is a straightforward meaning and in context make sense. Hendricks comments on it in his commentary. http://www.zdic.net/zd/zi/ZdicE6Zdic9CZdic98.htm http://humanum.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/Lexis/Lindict/ As to: "I know classical Chinese is metaphorical but this is really stretching it. I prefer the original two characters 全作 which means one's uncompromised competency (even though one is untouched by the union of female and male). " You just epitomized your idea of American Iiberalism... as 全作 is a later correction by Wang Bi (600 years later?)... Of all the main manuscripts, only he uses this; and your following suit by using his correction... It should be noted that Fuyi of Sui Dynasty manuscript (300 years after Wang Bi?) went back to the older manuscript characters. And I think you are once again putting words in people's mouth. Who said 'sexual erection' ? This tends to carry a connotation which nobody said. Chidragon said 'sexual organs' which in context is synonymous with reproductive organs... Nothing sexual is implied... and when I said "simple display (erection) of natural essence"... I gave the source of the display as simply natural essence. Any man is probably aware of this meaning and various sources it can take... it can even be caused by a need to go to the bathroom. It seems your putting emphasis on 'sexual' without knowing context or just want to play word games.

Whether the valley is used or bathing (or water--as it is what fills the valley-streams), they are all the female principle (yin)... so I wouldn't get too caught up in exactly which word is intended but to grasp the meaning intended. Valley (or water) and Spirit are both yin aspects and represent [the center of] emptiness/nothingness but it uses a physical (outer) and spiritual (inner) aspect to show the dynamic potential which resides in the void. The female principle of reproduction/creation is easily understood as this is how something can come from nothing (and why a male aspect would not work as nothing can come from that nothing aspect). While the DDJ passage talks of this as the 'gate', it is the portal between the physical and spiritual.' The outer and inner. Thus, it is Yang-within-Yin (as was said). This is the root to [to the arising of] Heaven and Earth; The upper and lower. Another female aspect which should not get lost is that this emptiness/nothingness is the Wu-State. Once one connects this nothingness of 'Wu' to the female Shaman 'Wu', the common glyph can be understood. As Ellen Chen has suggested: If Philosophy is the rationalization of religion, then 'Wu' could be the DDJ rationalization of the ancient female shamanistic political and spiritual power. Inner and outer; above and below.

In Yang's book on Embryonic Breathing, Valley Spirit is detailed as the upper dantian in classic texts. The idea of 'washing spirit' (or bathing the spirit) is about nourishing the spirit. Only a few ancient chinese texts use this phrase. The now missing "Book of the Yellow Emperor" is said to be the first to use it but Leizi text quotes the passage which is also now in the DDJ. Not sure this is worth pursuing further here?

I actually thought that might be the case... and I did get an initial laugh at the idea.

That is an interesting correction given it does not exist in any of the older manuscripts. Wang Bi was the only one to use 全作. Here is what appears to be the varying texts: Guodian - 然恕or 然怒 – 然 - Hendricks suspects the original character which is not known and looks like 勿over top of土 , was a variant of Yang (陽) MWD B - 朘怒 HSG - 峻作 FuYi - 脧作 WB - 全作 Received - 朡作 I think the MWD B is correct to correspond this to the infant reproductive organ based on a Guodian pictograms of natural vigor or virility. Lo Sang Ho treats this as 'moderation'; from 'peel off' or 'reduce' with 'activity'. as to the next line: 精之至也 I agree that is nothing to do with sperm and is probably closer to a simple display (erection) of natural essence. Hinton's opening line, if I could just use "De" instead of translating would be: "Embody DE [integrity's] abundance and you're like a vibrant child" - Hinton (DE added) I think this is an exact picture of 精之至也, except now we're talking about [true] essence (Jing).

It's about a chapter 10 passage.

http://thetaobums.com/topic/23862-the-dangers-of-semen-retention/ FYI: you posted fourth in this thread.

I see the point as having to do with semen retention practices... These practices can be dangerous and do harm to the body. And I would agree with T that it goes against its own nature at some point.

Also consider that the heavenly gate (Tian Men) is also a reference to the third eye area... and what that represents as a passage/portal/connection.