dawei

Steve F: I have agreed with most everything you have said so far I just don't want to get caught up in the OP's games. You have rightly read his schtick; to ask a question, pull in responses and then tell everyone why they are wrong; your intuition was right, so don't give it up yet. Such absolutism is almost trolling but I feel a worm moving here to wiggle out of the pressure you have presented. Keep it up. I already got very tired of it but now you can carry on with it.

Well, your ignoring an answer to your original assertion and what I asked in return. You stated "Hendricks didn't know" they were interchangeable. That would be semi-absurd to state, IMO. Your just twisting out an answer to plug your received version. We get it. You use the received version since it clears up 2500 years of mistakes the rest of us are following. There are translators (yes plural) using "Names". Whatever. It's their translation.

Intuition is closer, IMO. No thinking or looking into the self is needed.

I've posted this in another thread but it's one of my favorite considerations, for Liezi: "Your body does not belong to you; its form was lent to you by heaven and earth. Your life does not belong to you; it came into existence with the interactions of the energies of heaven and earth. Your mind and your spirit are not yours to control; they follow the natural way of heaven and earth. . . ." Who am I? not a glib answer like "the divine is me and I am the divine". At least put it in a single word, Ethereal.

Do you have something useful to add? Otherwise, don't be such an ass here. I see you often want to cut off the discussion. This is a 'study'. Stop trying to control others. Despite all your claim for 'wu wei', you interfere quite a bit. You are much better than this.

Maybe I did not really word this idea correctly but I follow your point. I still cannot escape the use of 卻; how are you using it here? I feel like it is suggesting that the horses are often being used for war but 'return' when things are good. The gestation period for a horse is 11 months; so "mass producing" of horses is a very long-term idea, but the Warring State Period is a few hundred years. I think other than "mass produced", I would agree with this explanation. I get this as looking back on history; but Qin was not a major player throughout the Warring States Period; in fact, despite is size it spills into Tibet and was disorganzied. The Wei State (where the Zhou tribe resided) was much smaller but was much more powerful for a while. Zhao replaced war chariots with cavalry archers and was very successful for a while. Qin was good at a slow build up and deception. But it was around the time of Hanfei that Qin became more powerful and finally prevailed. thanks for the links.

I read the Hanfei commentary on this chapter and he has a curious section saying: If the production of domestic animals lessens, then there will be a lack of war-horses; if troops are used up, the army will be in a precarious state. If war-horses are lacking, then even the generals' horses will have to go on the battlefield. If the army is in a precarïous state, then even officials close to the ruler will be pressed into service. The horse is something of great use for the military; 'surroundings' are the officials close to the ruler. Since these days the troops' equipage must have recourse to the generals' horses and intimate officials, the text says: "When the way is not practiced in the world, then war-horses must be brought forth fiom the stalls of the high ministers." So there is a very early story relating that general's horses are synonymous with war-horses(?). Also there is a comment that 郊 is proximity to the ruler, not a bordering state; ergo, those close to the ruler(?). Thus, he seems to imply something along the lines of: "When the way is not practiced in the world, then war-horses must be brought forth from the stalls of the high ministers." I wonder if you see anything along this line? Or how do you take the chapter meaning?

Sometimes it sounds like gibberish and without meaning. If that's what you want, go for it but most readers do not prefer that. From the beginning we picked two translators using the Wang Bi and Hendricks since he uses the MWD. Considering that sometimes translators will use an older manuscript meaning in the Wang Bi, it takes an understanding to see how they arrived at their translation. Now you want to add into that mix a Received version that most never knew exist and they don't find their favorite translators using. So there is some impact to that now additional text and understanding yet another variation. You assume that because he choose to use "Names"? What other facts do you have to support that? I will tell you why I think he most likely knows this but choose to stick to 名(ming1): 1. Wing-Tsit Chan's DDJ translation is quite well known and often quoted by many other translators, as well as his notes. 2. His famous publication was printed in 1966, "A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy". 3. Hendricks published his translation in 1989. 4. Hendricks almost exclusive references, quotes, and notes Chan's translation throughout his. 5. Chan discusses the interchangeability of 名(ming1) and 明(ming2). In my mind, it is highly improbably that the only translator of the Guodian and Mawangdui did not know this issue. I am not saying he is right or wrong; I am only saying it seems more likely he knew and simply choose to translate it as he saw it. If one has seen his Guodian translation, he is incredibly detailed in describing the nuances of the classical text in terms of meaning, loans, sounds, rhythm, etc.

I see the "therefore" saying they directly support and explain 1-3. But the two oldest manuscripts are missing chunks as shown below in Red: MWD-A, missing in RED: (showing the equivalent Wang Bi below using Feng/English) 1. 不出戶知天下。- Without going outside, you may know the whole world. 2. 不闚牖見天道。- Without looking through the window, you may see the ways of heaven. 3. 其出彌遠，The farther you go, 其知彌少。- the less you know. 4. 是以聖人不行而知。- Thus the sage knows without traveling; 5. 不見而名[明]。- He sees without looking; 6. 不為而 - He works without 成 - doing.。 MWD-B, missing in RED: 1. 不出戶知天下。 2. 不闚牖見天道。 3. 其出彌遠，其知彌少。 4. 是以聖人不行而知。 5. 不見而名[明]。 6. 不為而成。 Probably missing due to damage rather than not having been written, otherwise it was just: 1,2,3,6(?)

Here is what I see as the logical connection between the opening lines and the later lines: (I am not translating the lines, just giving the short meaning which should tie together) Fu Yi: (First complete text; adheres to Mawangdui) 1. 不出戸可以知天下 - Without going can Know 2. 不窺牅可以知天道 - Without looking can Know 4. 不行而知 - Knows without Going 5. 不見而名 - Names without Seeing IMO, it does not seem in sync. If 'describes' or 'distinguishes' were used instead of the literal 'Names', then I can agree with this Wang Bi: (Actually this is the Heshang Gong since Wang Bi follows his change) 1. 不出戶知天下。 - Without going can Know 2. 不闚牖見天道。 - Without looking can See (follows Heshang Gong) 4. 不行而知。 - Know without Going 5. 不見而名。- Names without Seeing IMO, it does not sync up yet, If 'describes' or 'distinguishes' were used instead of the literal 'Names', then I can agree with this Variations: "Understands without seeing" 1. 不出戸可以知天下 - Without Going can Know 2. 不窺牅可以見天道 - Without Looking can See (follows Heshang Gong) 4. 不行而知 - Know without Going 5. 不見而明 - Understand without Seeing (classical language exchange) IMO, it does not sync up yet. Wrong translation of Ming. Variations: "Sees without looking" 1. 不出戸可以知天下 - Without Going can Know 2. 不窺牅可以見天道 - Without Looking can See (follows Heshang Gong) 4. 不行而知 - Know without Going 5. 不見而明 - See without Looking (classical language exchange) IMO, this is the more logical of the exchange of 明 since the lines are now in sync in meaning.

I agree. ALL versions have 不見而名. Wang Bi comments in his day and says 名 to explain 名. So we know exactly what his source was; the exact same as all previous manuscripts. Yes, I know this. But you choose not to reveal the changes to the text you choose to follow. If you deviate from the normal text, you should take the time to explain it. IMO, this is a 'study' after all; so why not enlighten us upfront to your reasons for not following the normal text or why you use the alterations. The first reads a little awkward in english to me. In general, you should consider a word or two more so it reads as better english. The "Without... but.." does not really read well. The second reads ok but is maybe not completely clear. IMO, The more logical translation of Ming (明) would be: "Sees without looking" - That is what line 2 is saying and it is an explanation of that line, IMO. or if Ming (名) is used, then it should be "describes" or "distinguishes". see my next post where I sort out the variations I see:

I see that line 5 has variations as follows: MWD-A; 5. □□□□ MWD-B 5. □□而名 Fu Yi: 5. 不見而名 Heshang Gong: 5. 不見而名 Wang Bi 1: 5. 不見而名 (Wang Bi's commentary confirms he used this) Wang Bi 2: (unknown source altering the Wang Bi) 5. 不見而明 It is clear from the Wang Bi commentary that 不見而名 is what he worked with. He comments: "He understands the principle of entities; this is why even 'without looking at [them],' it is possible for him to give the [correct] 'name' to the ordering principle of right and wrong". --- I am not sure if people tire of pointing out the textual issues. But I think we need to stick to the common text the three translators stick to; and if we deviate from that to show it and explain it. Otherwise, everyone is mislead to believe the alterations are what was used.

Yes, his 'terse translation' is not obvious in meaning Think of it like the Sage; he can: 4. Know something without going 'anywhere' (he does not need to go to know) 5. Name something without having to see 'anything' (he does not need to see to give a name) 6. Completes something without doing 'anything' (he does not need to forcefully do to complete) 5. 不見而名 bu jian er ming Some appear to exchange 名 (ming-Name) with 明 (ming-Understand) 5. Understands without seeing - Lin Yutang ; also Chan I think the way to understand 4 and 5 is that they are an explanation of 1 and 2: 1 & 4: you can 'know' something without leaving the door 2 & 5: you can 'see' something without looking out the window The problem with Hendricks translation is that the Mawangdui does NOT have 'see' in line 2 like the Wang Bi. In the Wang Bi, 'know' and 'see' are repeated to these explanatory lines (1&4 have 'know'; 2&5 have 'see'). In the Mawangdui, 'know' is used in lines 1 and 2. That may be another reason why some feel justified to use "understand" (ie: to know) in line 5.

I say next chapter...

You know that blissful look and feeling inside when time seems to stop and your mind is as empty as possible... it happens right after a great bout of constipation and finally breaks free and releases all. I think it's just people living and breathing with the same pulse as nature. When I was at Mt. QingCheng in Southern Sichuan province of China, there was a sign explaining the life of a certain village which is home to the oldest living people in the world; The simple life of waking and sleeping with the sun.

I don't mind stopping but I am not sure that others are confused by the discussion. It would be a reasonable reason to stop though.

There are too many stories in different cultures talking about levitation; I don't doubt it. Flying must require some incredible level of awareness/connectedness. Have you ever do the simple act of using Qi to raise your arm off a table or while laying down? There is the book, Magic and Mystery in Tibet by Alexandra David-Neel who spent about 30 years (?) in Tibet. She tells many interesting stories of their abilities.

There is another passage that I have always liked: "Your body does not belong to you; its form was lent to you by heaven and earth. Your life does not belong to you; it came into existence with the interactions of the energies of heaven and earth. Your mind and your spirit are not yours to control; they follow the natural way of heaven and earth"

From an experimental point of view; putting Qi into food. Also, google Emoto on youtube to see his work with thoughts and water crystallized formations. It seems to support what Yang, Jwing-Ming says in one of his books that the mind is an EMF in relation to the energetic property of Qi. That Qi, say of the universe, can affect the Qi of the body seems reasonable; but that the mind can became a kind of 'first cause' intrigues me.

Yes, I thought that was one of the best explanations I have seen. Right after that, I found a picture which seemed to exactly show your point and thought to post it but didn't want to push it any further. Thanks.

Yes, this is true. But the disease process is not 'physical' alone. One can heal the physical or even the energetic body as they believe very basic chinese medicine, but it may fail to reach the spiritual and divine healing. The point of the thread seems to really be about those higher levels; if someone cannot move beyond the physical level then, well, they are stuck to describe and deal with physical issues.

thanks anyways.

If there is a need inside us but we have it and just have to call it out, then there is some separation going on in the explanation. So I understand why you started with 'I am the divine and the divine is me' since I assume you were trying to show no separation. I won't belabor this line further. I'll follow up with. What is the relationship between the The Great One, Wuji, Divine, Shen, Dao, and Qi (all these are often touted some universal something-or-other? And is there something else you would put in the mix to describe your view of it all? (I am just leaving it open that you may expand my question as you want). Thanks

nice offer. Q: Is the body really [ultimately] solid? (I guess akin to 'who am I' in some way)