dawei

That is true until the individual explicitly starts telling others they are wrong, they cannot translate, they are not chinese and so don't understand, they are not listening to native writers, they are not agreeing to the comma placement, belittle others while claiming they hold the keys to Wu Wei... I was simply the early voice in the wilderness calling BS on it all... now there are at least two dozen more who have called BS on it; I no longer have done so for many months... if you have not noticed... but it seems I still get chased around with his comments like a stalker... very telling on some level. Maybe some people just miss fighting with certain people... or it's just in their nature to put other's down and their view... whatever floats their boat.

I think there are two points to be observed in the 'differences' that Rene tries to explain: 1. Emphasis on text as words; The arbitrary comma placement - If one is simply translating words, then the comma placement is of utmost importance. This is how some can argue their position of their translation; place a comma after "Wu" and you can say this is about "Wu". This is very unconventional as a translation but one should tolerate it; This is the way of reading and writing words. 2. Emphasis on text as meaning; the Yin hidden within the Yang - Wang takes this approach and I would say most higher thinkers since words drop away at some point and one is left with an understanding beyond reading and writing words. A serious read of Flowing Hands transmission is a good example of this. I am not saying one has to agree with it but it is a good example to tolerate if one is willing to tolerate a much more unconventional translation as above.

I only think it is a bad idea if one says "do nothing" (or whatever variation) without saying what that means... if this is simply an english expression, then that means one thing. If this is Wu Wei, then the general consensus is that the using an english expression as "do nothing" is not what it literally means; the phrase and meaning are hidden from each other but those in the Wu Wei know, know what is meant. I have no problem with someone transiating Wu Wei as 'do nothing' if they have adequately stated it is a hidden meaning of effortless action. To me, there is ultimately action but to be fair, to say "do nothing" has a kind of Lao Zi mystery to it...

I have actually pondered that as well... but in the end, I yield to the a 'way' in which people are... because there will always be tolerants and intolerants. As to a sustainable way, that is defined by each because the definition is individual on some level. If intolerants leads to shorter sustainability then that is the way it goes; it phases out in its time. While I do agree in the principle that that there are better ways, I must accept that some will not care for it. What they display is intolerance and that is what they care about. One thing is certain to me; while I don't want to try and force someone to a certain way, I do think it is OK to call BS when intolerance is obviously being done as a choice. Everyone seems to see it except the intolerants. They can't seem to tolerate the idea that they are being intolerant.

Not at all really; it is the resistance to understanding your point which is causing the point to run on. I don't disagree with what you've said and have found out myself (as you might) that some ideas/concepts/explanations are not going to be accepted if it appears to be something beyond the physical, natural senses. But you should know others do understand and agree with what your saying.

Earlier you said that you were not sure anyone can always be Wu Wei... I said wait until Chapter 57... and here it is. Lao Zi says: I Wu Wei... I don't think it is a choice for him but his very being.

I don't think you two are talking exactly the same thing so it does appear as a difference. But if one talks about an 'awakening of realization', it would mean (to me) that the natural connection without exclusion is simply not what they are aware of or have come to be aware of. Clearly, daoist had different thoughts than the confucians or legalists but they all would probably admit to a natural connection without exclusion since that was fundamental to the world view of all the philosophies. But if a person's awareness is purely a social context or a political context then I think it not really yet looking to the source in the way Lao Zi does. JMO.

Please take this to Rene's Thread, The Two States of Tao: http://thetaobums.com/topic/24462-the-states-of-tao/ Let us get back to the main themes defined by the thread.... Thanks.

FH: If the theme of 'self' has been dealt with enough, can you talk to another theme?

Yes, that is my meaning. To say 'people' is very clear although it may not be really correct it does not need too much explanation or history lesson. If one says "Clan affiliations" then it may require some explanation. I am sure professional translators, particularly if they are trying for a readable translation in print (and to be sold as a book) weight all these issues and decide upon what makes sense for their audience. if this was a paper for a symposium of sinologist, then "clan affiliations" would be a catchy title and beg some explanation to the curious minds out there. So I think your original intent, to post this idea as a deeper explanation for discussion rather than as a simple translation to sell to the masses, is well received for me.

I do think from a anciently and historically classical point of view, you are correct. To treat this as "people" is a more modern interpretation since it is now not common to understand the early tribal and clan formations which evolved to more and more segregated areas under a ruler. Soon, the use of surnames would evolve beyond a tribe or clan and become used a name for a family. This evolution is natural and expected. It is as the historian Sima Qian said of the 'house of dao (Dao Jia); They adapt to the changing times; this was the hallmark of a 'Daoist'. A little more history: In origin, the surname would come from nature or worship. Fu Xi's surname was 'Feng' (Wind) which sounds the same as the character for Phoenix. Nu Wa, his sister-wife also had the same surname. Interesting to note that intermarrying between those with the same clan-name was latter prohibited. Shennong's surname was Jiang, an underground herb. Huang Di grew up near the Ji River and adopted that (Ji) as his surname; his brother Yan Di took 'Jiang' for the 'Jiang' River. From Huang Di, 12 surnames were bestowed on his children. In most cases, these surnames were also clan-names. So it seems the most ancient use was simply to designate a certain group/tribe/clan. And that the tribe rulers were the one's who held the surname (and power to bestow them). As these tribes consolidated (through war or alliance) they also grew in size and as territories grew, surnames were given according to the geographic locations. But up to this point, 'people' did not have surnames but rather people were understood as part of a group/tribe/clan/location/affiliation. Even later generations show that a king would have concubines with surnames based on where they came from. Again, this was important to know since people with the same tribe/clan-name (surname) could not intermarry. What is sometimes not considered is the the normal way of expressing 'people' would be Min (民) and Ren (人), even in the Lao ZI. So 'Bai Xing' should be looked at in context as it can have a few meanings all of which may be a distinction without a difference on some level... but it is clear that in some places it does not just mean people but probably more like the common people (as opposed to the Sage and probably as opposed to the nobility). So, IMO, the more correct meaning of 'Bai Xing' (100 surnames) is to mean the combined tribes-turned clans-turned segregated areas under the same rulership. In today's thinking, we would more likely say 'the people' and in the process lose the original history and meaning. So I guess this is my way of saying that I actually like what you proposed in the beginning title... it makes sense to me but I am willing to accept the more modern interpretation (not a translation) as 'the people' since some want to state it more simply and don't care to convey historical and classical correctness. P.S. about: he wasn't talking about people but "names." Even 'names' may not be really correct as it was more a designation for a tribe/clan/group, or the name of a consolidation of tribes/clans/groups...

I think we three all have the same idea but talking about it in slightly different ways... as I agree with what you are saying but agree with what Rene means too. Your point fills in some of the blank spots. Nicely done.

You still don't quite understand English sayings (as you got the meaning wrong) but that is ok... at least it sounds like your willing to attempt some try at Wu Wei... glad to hear that.

The whole dilemma with Wu Wei begins when one tries to study it for understanding... and dissects it and breaks it down into concepts and theories... and tries to define "when", "how", "who", etc... but misses the basic point... Wuzhen pian, “Jueju,” poem 42: -- Fabrizio Pregadio It begins with doing, and hardly can one see a thing, when it comes to non-doing, all begin to understand. But if you only see non-doing as the essential marvel, how can you know that doing is the foundation?

君子學以聚之 - The superior man learns and accumulates the results of his learning; 日就月將 - But by daily progress and monthly advance, Lao Zi does not use this ancient Confucian formula or wording... but seems to want to negate it's stress... Thus, Lao Zi wants to say something different than the normal Confucian translations we see about accumulation, increase, lessening, etc... To understand Lao ZI, look to nature for an example...

Yes.... I am not seeking to do pendantic word by word translations based on the logic of my own inventions.... I understand the text based on something beyond the senses... I don't expect the pedantic-types to understand it. May I ask why you have intentionally sought me out two times to stop my participation in this thread??? You may want to introspectively review your intentions... else I may ask a mod to do so. Just participate in the thread and leave any stalking out of it. thanks.

Here are the points I would make about this chapter: 1. Bu Ren (不仁) - The paramount importance of Ren (仁) in Confucius thinking cannot be ignored. The five relationships are based on it. It requires physical interaction. It is one of the most important virtues since it originates from the idea of one person taking care of another person (think any of the five relationships or ancestor worship). Laozi is saying that Heaven and Earth are NOT this way (Bu Ren); without regard to relationships or man-made virtues. 2. Chu Guo (芻狗) - I have read in the Xiang'er Manuscript commentary, which is one of the earliest ones on the Lao Zi text, that it was a custom in Huang Di's time to hang them (chu guo) on the door as a reminder to the people; later it was used as a ceremonial piece, then trampled and discarded to prevent the evil Qi it absorbed being used again. My opinion is that the way straw dogs is interpreted in the latter sense is wrong as Lao Zi would often speak of the earlier sages and thus want to reference Huang Di's use of the chu guo. 3. Bai Xing (百 姓) - 100 surnames. Where did these even originate??? From Huang Di era... In very ancient times, the common folks/people did not have surnames only the sage-king and his family had them. But to be fair, it should be reckoned that surnames originate from their own pictogram: A woman and a child (birth); a matriarchal society. The most ancient surnames all had a female character part. Since the sage-king was able to bestow on his own family a surname, they took charge of different parts of the tribal land; in later times, as a people were claimed to another they often took the name of the surname of which previously ruled them. This custom was followed for a very long time since surnames where not openly given to all people. This meant that at one time, only the nobility had surnames and explains why some translate the lines in this. Getting back to history: When Huang DI defeated Yan Di (some say his brother), as recorded in the Shi Ji, this accounted for the combined tribe which was considered the HuaXia people (Xia=Xia dynasty). Later, Huang Di successfully fought the last remaining, warring Jiu li tribe and these three tribes were now consolidated and considered the '100 surnamed people'. But the fact is, this consolidation by defeat meant slaves by consolidation; defeated people rushed to the conquering tribe to avoid elimination. So anciently, bai xing also meant the owners of names; slave-owners... but this small point, while little understood, is also of little consequence...

Both/And; Either/Or.... these are the 'way', definitely. When I say "we tend to..." I mean the human condition... I do not mean my personal 'way'. I am cognizant of the public 'way' and need to recognize it... but I am glad to see your personal reflection and comments.... one should truly feel their own personal way and even be able to articulate it which you easily do.

Who is the judge of this? If self... then I accept your comments... if the source... then the idea is empty. So it depends on the point of view. If you are viewing from self... there is always more to gain; to achieve; to lessen; to lose; to reach... good luck with that live-long-pursuit. If viewing from the source.... you are home...

wei xue ri yi 為學日益 wei dao ri sun 為道日損 Ever heard the chinese sayings: - Confucian by day and Daoist by night - Confucian publicly and Daoist privately Don't get stuck on "learning", "Seeking", "Practicing", etc as most translates will have us be literally sucked into... it is imagery. If one thinks about the earth; during the day, what is accumulated; and during the second half of the day what is depreciated so what is the net result? In fact, it is a trick question... It is playing on a modern game of thinking there must be gain vs loss... In Dao, there is Both/And; Either/Or... They are not 'net' but complementary and interdependent transformations of each other. sun zhi you sun 損之又損 yi zhi yu wu wei 以至於無為 wu wei er wu bu wei 無為而無不為 As the day wears on... Earth is simply following it's natural ebb and flow (wu wei) This ebb and flow; Is this ebb and yet not also flow?

You were definitely on the path of the great 'duh' with shooting and eating the squirrel... follow your natural instinct. But if one is purposely trying to lessen something to an absolute minimum in order to attain something... they are in the intentional process of refinement; this is not the De of Dao but of Man's efforts. You may get your mind/body/spirit to another state but then again... that state was simply waiting for you to realize what was there... JMO

"Virtue"... this is a topic of considerable interest... for both daoists... and confucians... I see both getting mixed up here. And they are not the same for each. Confucians and other priests (including Daoist) want one to nurture, cultivate and create an atmosphere for virtue to bloom... IMO, it is intrinsically within. While we may believe that some 'actions' help it grow, arise, or spread... that is just Confucianism for the outward display. There is no inwards display; only an inward disposition or capacity. The cat is always in possession of this (De); and most virtuous when eating mice since that is by its very nature (ZiRan) what it should naturally do (Wu Wei). Man seems to lose their bearing of De by thinking about it instead of acting on the inner essence of it.

Would that be like someone saying they love being awake more than being asleep? Is it a matter of what awareness is present (or not)? From a practical point of view, we tend to prefer what our senses tell us. That may be why Wu Wei (Wu-action, Wu-state) is not internally completely; the senses prevent it on some level.

yes, that is how I understand him and think he is on to something but it may still be a bit too directly translating for some.

Thanks for that; I missed the other thread but now can catch up on that. I generally like what Wang says and agree with what he is saying here. WuWei is action so when he turns it around as "Acting with Wu", I find it a refreshing and direct point. I do think the opening lines are key to the section where we start. IMO, It is essentially saying that the soft-hard are transformations. They are not so much overcoming one another as they are a phase change of each other. This interplay is seen in the second line with Wu-You (Wu-Manifest) becomes Wu-Jian (Wu-Spaceless) ; this is why Wu-state can transform to You-state. And I don't like Yi (益) as benefit. I think knowing the value is closer without having to say it is valuable. But in context of the line Wu Wei Zhi Yi (無為之益) I think it is better understood simply as 'use', based on the contract required by the previous line (wordless teaching).