dawei

Actually you corrected me (another process) to what I meant (u-turn). That was the other process, the U-turn.... from recycle. Got you.

First: your not my friend. Either your sucking up or playing more games. Second: I speak for the english language as my first language; you clearly cannot articulate it yet despite your repeated attempts to translates in a few nonsensical phrases. Third: I speculate your melting down. I am being most kind at this point. Just interact and stop crying wolf or thanking others for "listening". Your digging your own grave here... we are just handing you a shovel.

Please grow up and stop handing out pampers to us all. We are not here to serve your requirements.

Ok... I was having a hard time getting the "into" direction 'into' my head... now I get it. I wonder if the moment in time of the directional 'born' or 'recycle' is what is being suggested also? Meaning, you could be in the middle of another process?

Actually it seems that it was effective to getting the post name changed... but we seemed to have completely stalled our "study" since this hijacking occurred...

It is not a compliment. Either you don't know the subtle of the english language or your just playing another word game. He was direct with his meaning after all. If you don't really understand his meaning then you really missed his point. Another observation.

Observations are different than personal feelings. Calm down. Your "is not" is essentially the same as "cannot" the minute you SAY anything. Both are emphatic. Your translation is actually more wide ranging than Stig's in that sense since he more narrowly defined what is not the eternal Dao; you lumped it all together as anything one might say. Now... lest I appear to agree with Stig's translation I do agree that in Chapter 25 there is a difference being drawn between the designation of Dao and the Name of Dao, but in the end, Lao Zi gives it a name: 大; So maybe we can talk about it but it is not necessarily Dao... OR This line of thinking is not really what Lao Zi had in mind since he does talk about it

I don't think you realize that your translation suggests it as well: Chapter 1 The eternal Tao 1. Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao. This suggests: If you speak [anything] about Tao, it's not the eternal Tao... even chapter 14 or ANY chapter. So you should evaluate your own interpretation a little further before pulling the speck out of another's eye. But it's getting old and I don't like to play some of these games.

You can see it clearly enough here: It's implied by the above.

In the beginning, the group made a decision to ALWAYs have the TTC Study threads with the three translations listed first, usually without any comment by the first poster. Just look at them and you cannot help but notice this... or so, I would of thought. Just don't use [TTC Study] for your own posts and translations. Use your own convention as you want.

Bingo. When I translated this line, I actually wrote the last part as: "Observe its origin". Two lines later I ended it with "observe its boundary". BTW: I am often curious why people translate it as "mystery" since once without desires it is not really a mystery at all. It is a mystery to them who cannot grasp it, yes?

That makes sense to me. The first time I tried to translate this I wrote it down as "useful instruments" as related to the court/ruler; the officials are instruments of the court.

I wonder if someone can start this chapter again and follow the naming convention and first post of three translations like we do for ALL the [TTC Study] chapters.

Although I usually like terse translations this is on where I prefer to say more in this translation like Wagner does. Here is my version and I'll forewarn that I don't like 'weakness' : The one who possesses reciprocity is in accordance with the movement of Dao. And is one who yields in accordance with the function of Dao. All things under heaven are a product of the visible realm And the visible world is a product of the invisible realm. Note: The Guodian text did not have 'you' in the last line so it could be read as: All things under heaven are a product of the visible realm [and] a product of the invisible realm. I think most feel the repeat character (for 'you') was a typist oversight and so 'you' is repeated in most manuscripts.

Being a short chapter, I will share Rudolf Wagner's Translation of the Wang Bi commentary: He who acts by way of the negative opposite [ie: Sage] is the one who moves [in accordance with] the Way. He who is weak [ie: Sage] is the one who makes use of the Way. The entities of all under heaven have [their] life in [the realm of] the Entity, but Entity has [its] life in negativity. -- Tr. Wagner Wagner says that, "the very complicated translation for 反 here as 'acting by way of the negative opposite' is based on the context both in Wang Bi on Laozi 28.5 and here. At it's core is the notion that the ruler with his high position and immeasurable wealth has to perform publicly the negative opposite in order to stabilize society and to secure his life and position.".

I see a lot of variations offered, so here is one more: The common principle of Dao is to not interfere yet all things are engendered If rulers and leaders could observe this All things would change state on their own If such change is on the verge of producing interference I would subdue it by [engendering] nameless simplicity And this would nourish less desire Without this desire [to interfere], there is peace And natural order prevails in the world Notes: I borrowed 'common' from tianshi's comment in the other thread's use of 'Chang' as commonplace. I tend to see 'non-interference' and natural transformation as the main point. If this prevails then natural order prevails. Dao itself does not seek any result but lets all things transform and prevail on their own.

I agree in general and there is more talk about enemies in Chapter 31. I also see the passage as having application to the common people [under the ruler]. A heavy fisted ruler is despised but people left alone are more natural (chapter 32) and hardly know who is their ruler (chapter 17); so don't threaten them with death (chapter 74). It is interesting how the two lines of a fish and weapons are juxtaposed. But it seems a good teaching point from nature: Just as fish are naturally inclined to remain in deep water so weapons should remain out of sight.

I follow your point of negation. What really has stayed with me since visiting Mt. Qingcheng is a hugh etching (one of maybe hundreds upon hundreds on the mountain) which said: 老子非常道 - Lao Zi Fei Chang Dao After many days (dare I say weeks) of thinking about this, I could not accept the spoon fed, textbook translation any more of line 1. Thanks.

I know where you get 'commonplace' but maybe you can say something more. Is your meaning of 'commonplace' relative to Dao or relative to all the ten thousand (ie: they each have their own commonplace 'way of conduct' which unfolds). I am personally looking into turning the negative around to state what the positive case is: - Is not a commonplace way of conduct How would you turn that around to say what it "IS"? - Is a unique way of conduct? (each manifests their own unique way?)

I don't mind the 'time' approach so much but you would have to say where you take this. I always like the parallel thought and feeling that the Tai Yi Sheng Shui (大一生水) provided concerning Dao: The generating cycle (over time) and it's designation (as Dao) but wondering as to it's 'name' (ming). Chapter 25 asks the same questions and arrives at the same conclusions. There is an interest passage in the Tai Yi Sheng Shui in reference to the cycle: 此天之所不能殺，- This is something which heaven cannot cut off 地之所不能埋，- [That] earth cannot bury 陰陽之所不能成。- [That] Yin and Yang cannot complete 君子知此之胃{謂) [missing character(s)] - The thoughtful man knows this is designated [Way]. I think this doesn't care to get into whether speaking something or naming something is eternal (or can name the eternal); it is simply that there is always a designation we would call 'Dao'. Forget 'heaven'; forget 'earth'; forget 'yin and yang'; There is still a designation we would call 'Dao'. Now bring in 'heaven' and 'earth' and 'yin yang'; There is still a designation we would call 'Dao'.

Having just returned from a month in china and having visited a few daoist temples (in Sichuan province) I walked away with a different take than the traditional, pat approach of saying what dao is not (or what one cannot do or say about it). Unfortunately, to explain it as clear as possible, I have to appeal to more free-form philosophical discussion but I see it as the meaning of the opening lines. I think the main change from most translations is the following: 1. ke dao = dao'ed (dao in action or movement) 2. heng/chang = Constant, regular, permanent 3. fei heng/chang dao = none-constancy of Dao (the non-fixed arising, manifest aspect) By fixed I mean that Dao is not really anything in-and-of-itself but more like a rule (or law of nature) which the ten thousand things appear to operate by their nature; but one has to always remember that it is a system in constant interaction and therefore nothing is really constant. I see it similar to playing a game; One can play by fixed rules but once you actually play the rules are constant but playing reveals that the rules produce an arising which cannot occur unless you play. So in a nutshell: Dao Ke Dao Dao once dao'ed Fei Heng/Chang Dao [results in] the non-fixed arising of [following] Dao Or to say: When Dao [as a fixed set of rules] is manifested by the ten thousand things, there is [non-fixed] arising and transformation. I think Chapter 25 and 42 in particular support this as a following and transformation. I don't want to attempt to shove it down anyone's throat with tons of evidence. I hope that some simply see the point but it can be discussed further if of interest.

Which of course makes sense since air both contracts and expands. Note that in energy/energetic/qigong, 'fire' is often associated to the Kidney and/or lower dan tian realm. TCM seems to explain it a little differently than the energetic model but they don't have to completely agree. The latter's associations to the kidney are probably due to the emphasis on practice, development and preservation of the kidney essence.

I would say the mind creates the false sense of what is life; it constructs and manifests what we think is going on. Like the front end to interfacing conscious in the physical realm. The lower brain is what connects us beyond all this and may be interface to the unconscious part we all share or a part of (I might call it just the immaterial instead of void). I would not say that Tao is the void but I see it as PART of the immaterial non-existent. I think the other thread on Divine Power (I prefer Presence) has overlapping ideas; that is the whole which Tao (to me) is a part of. I am not disagreeing with you. I like most of what you said.