dawei

天 下 神 器 - All World Spirit vessel 不 可 為 也 - cannot act also 為 者 敗 之 - act'ist defeats I prefer 'The word is a spiritual vessel'. Sacred sounds too much like what is applied to animals or a mountain as homage. I think LZ has more spiritual aspirations. Within the spiritual realm, acting (doing, trying) is self-defeating since it is really without form or substance; nothing to 'act' on. I personally think LZ is trying to point out that the earthly existence is but a spiritual one. Many are living earthly existence; this is a spiritual existence. That's why the sage avoids earthly ways (last lines).

To me, it simply means: 1. At peace the left side is recognized [as a preference for peace-- honor] 2. At war, the right side is recognized [as a preference for war -- dishonor] This is supported by the last five lines. Why is "The commander-in-chief on the right." ? As the highest ranking superior (normally honored to the left), he is responsible for all the deaths that will ensure (and funerals); so he gets the position to the right of dishonorable action. --- Right and Left have an incredibly important role in ancient china. The left was dominant in many ways: - Left side was man and yang. (The Adam and Eve of Ancient China is Fuxi and Nuwa were depicted as on the left and right respectively.). - The ancient books describing sexual relations and interactions between the sexes stated men walked in the streets to the left. - Cardinal direction favored is east: Since the emperor's palace should faced south, then the east is the left. Ancient Cities were built upon this basis. - Twin lions in front of the palace represent: Left one is male lion as power (most senior official) and right one was female lion as family (guard of emperor's son). Despite this, there are some references that: - The right side minister was superior and changed to the left in 3rd Century BC onward (Eberhard). - The oracle bones often had a positive charge (right side) and a negative charge (left side) to the issue they were asking about. A somewhat curious and confusing passage goes as: "All yamens in China face south; there are rare exceptions, usually owing to building difficulties. Once, in the province of Kwei Chou, I was officially invited by the mandarin to take my seat on his right instead of on his left, because, as he explained, his yamen door did not face south, but west; and, he added, it was more honourable for me, as an official guest, to sit north, facing west, than to sit south, facing west." - The implication here is that the offer to sit to the "right" is inferred as being superior. I am not sure this meaning is the only interpretation. The site was admitted as not facing south (ie: situated to the north), so allowing the visitor to the position to the north could mean extending the honored situation. Parker, quoting this passage, infers simply the man was sitting to the 'right' as the reason for honor (north facing west). One of the oldest symbolisms of right vs left is with one of the most archtype Yin Yang association; The Dragon and Tiger. Most today know the Dragon and Phoenix as symbolic of Yin Yang, but think that the Dragon and Tiger are antagonistic not Yin Yang. The oldest drawing of a Tiger and Dragon exists in a burial grave found to be about 6000 BC; the outline of a Dragon (on the right) and Tiger (on the left) was created using shells. While this alone does not imply which side is more honored, it should be noted that later, Dragons tended to take the position of the left and became the symbol of the imperial court (the Tiger become the symbol of the people).

I made a comment over here on the versions you are providing: http://www.thetaobums.com/index.php?/topic/17342-on-the-tao-te-ching/page__pid__250264__st__16entry250264 This is a neat idea to show Hendricks' translations but neither is based on the main text everyone knows. That aside, as a means of simply seeing what Hendricks is providing. The confusion (well, to me) is that some of the chapters are a mix of his Ma-wang-tui and Guodian in the same chapter and there is no reflection of which is which. take Chapter 5 for example: Your Original Post: Chapter 5 (A:12) 1. Heaven and Earth are not humane; 2. They regard the thousand things as straw dogs. 3. The Sage is not humane; 4. He regards the common people as straw dogs. 5. The space between Heaven and Earth— 5a. Is it not like a bellow? 6. Though it is empty it does not collapse; 7. When put into motion it sends forth all the more. 8. Much learning means frequent exhaustions. 9. That's not so good as holding on to the mean. --- Hendricks Ma-wang-tui: 1. Heaven and Earth are not humane; 2. They regard the the thousand things as straw dogs. 3. The Sage is not humane; 4. He regards the common people as straw dogs. 5. The space between Heaven and Earth—is it not like a bellow? 6. It is empty and yet not depleted; 7. Move it and more [always] comes out. 8. Much learning means frequent exhaustions. 9. That's not so good as holding on to the mean. --- Hendricks Guodian: 5. The space between Heaven and Earth— 5a. Is it not like a bellow? 6. Though it is empty it does not collapse; 7. When put into motion it sends forth all the more. --- The Guodian only has 4 lines for this chapter but the way you show it in the original post, it is impossible to know what is Ma-wang-tui and what is Guodian. I think for each chapter, you should just show each one separately and not mix them. That way, you'll also show the nuance of his own changes. Note line six in his two versions ! Just my thought. Nice idea.

I thought this a rather interesting take on the two different viewpoints of the Laozi on Daoism: "Philosophical" and "Religious" Daoism: Two Commentaries on Daode Jing --- Here is my thoughts on the history of the commentaries and their influence: One's position on the DDJ may be a reflection of which commentator/translator they are most familiar with. But it should be pointed out that in general, the Neo-Daoist Wang Bi (a confucian seeking daoist understanding) is the world-over text that most everyone uses. He develops the metaphysical-political-philosophy which most adhere to. Some have broken down the first half (Dao Jing) as more metaphysical and the second half (De Jing) as socio-political. But the Wang Bi seems to combine the themes more than other commentary had done prior to him. Without any surviving parts, the keeper of the pass who asked Lao Zi to pen the DDJ is said to have written his own works based on the Laozi. These were used many years later by the more religious groups but that he may of had themes compatible to religious thinking shows an early interpretation along that lines. No text survives, only mentions of it. Few know that the very first commentary on the Laozi was Han Fei, the legalist, written probably prior to 230 BC (because he seems to have a more complete version than the Guodian and he cites the Warring state turmoil still going on). His commentary conveys a sense of fear and survival; Consistent to the times. There is not any mention of Dao as metaphysical... it's all war and politics. There is a commentary by Yan Zun about 80 BC. China had been already unified by the exceedingly cruel first emperor but this period is the golden Han dynasty--think 'han chinese'. Huang-Lao political-legal-philosophy was the state ideology for a while. In this climate was Yan Zun, the Huainanzi and the famous Shi Ji (Classic of History) which first coined the phrase "Dao Jia". Confucianism was adopted as the state ideology and the civil exams for government jobs were based on the Confucian classic. This commentary talks much of the sage following nature, and thus the people as well will. Socio-Political harmony is important. Around 100 is the famous Heshanggong commentary which was popular even until the Song Dynasty (1000 years later). There is some focus on cultivation aspects of the Lao Zi, so a return to self-cultivation which was known among early Daoist text. The Yellow Turban Rebellion had already occurred and Buddhism had just step ashore of China. Around 200 is the Xiang'er commentary and this represents a stronger return to the spritual and self-cultivation. This was used by the Tian Shi Dao for their religious application of Dao. Around 230 was Wang Bi's text and commentary was written. He also wrote a commentary on the Yi Jing before dying at the young age of 23. He was a confucian who wanted to interpret a compatible version of the Lao Zi. He was associated with the Dark Learning School, taken from DDJ1. Their revival of daoist texts is almost a reaction to the religious revival of the text, but for socio-political reasons. During the Tang Dynasty was the Elizabethan Age of China where buddhism peak, the famous zen patriarchs lived, a temple was built to Laozi and poets flourished. There was a textual revival of the Lao Zi with every way of explanation; among the buddhist was their 'twofold mystery' taken from chapter 1. In the end, the Wang Bi text and commentary comes down to us as the version of choice (for that time period at least). The Daoist Cannon had it's fourth compilation during the Ming Dynasty (1445) and comprises over 5,000 books.

I am not seeing the mystery in dao. I personally think that a part of what Lao Zi is suggesting by that opening famous line is that one doesn't talk about it to make it known; one experiences it. That means, one has to get rid of words (ie: put the book down); you don't experience it by reading about it. Ergo, don't limit yourself to just what he or anyone says since it much more universal than anyone can try to explain. 10th or 11 dimension? I feel it is simply a part of some universal concept and representation. If by dimensions we are talking physical (or measurable, given some crazy ability to measure) manifestations, then I don't think so. I think it is a part of non-existence, so there is nothing to look at.

There was at least 5,000 years of tribal plains to state formation transitions prior to Lao Zi... THAT is the PERIOD in which Dao is mostly based on; NOT on the PERIOD of Lao Zi. He did live during the "Warring States Period" after all... political and social turmoil had climax from the earlier periods he reflected back to. So the idea of a political philosophy is relevant and shortly after his time, Dao gave rise to Huang-Lao political philosophy and the Huainanzi, which was a very strong mix of daoism and legalism in a political philosophy. This was a period of transition in how ideas of Dao were applied. Look at the ancient texts and they speak to periods which they referred the ancients followed. Or even Zhuang Zi; he talks of the earlier periods. My personal feeling is if you only read the Lao Zi, then one develops an idea based purely the words he used to describe what was going on in this transitional period of life and concerning Dao. Read other ancient texts, history , and archeology, and it's still not enough... although I have. Because the spiritual aspect was pushed down in the turmoil of the time and became isolated. This eventually happened to Traditional Chinese Medicine too; The 'spiritual' aspect which was there from the beginning is later pushed out. Lao Zi does not attempt to explain Medical Daoism, yet that is probably the most lasting contribution of daoism applied, and which is based on the time prior to Lao Zi. Why did Lao Zi not mention this medical side of applied dao, which pre-dates him? Because "he certainly did not spend any time trying to define any of it", therefore it is not a part of daoism? Daoism is so much bigger than Lao Zi, I can't explain it any other way. Trying to explain the totality of daoism from Lao Zi is like trying to explain the totality of god from the bible. Of course, JMO.

The problem I see with this is that the Spiritual aspect was prior to the Philosophical which is prior to the "organized" Religious aspect. Before writing put into words any kind of philosophical framework, we can see that shamanism reveals their connection to the spiritual universe; astrology/astronomy shows their connection to the influences of the physical universe, etc. The spiritual and physical understanding of Heaven-Man-Earth would add in the philosophical and medical and religious aspects later. As far back as we can see, Yin and Yang started as completely separate concepts and not really having any philosophical context until much later. Note that Lao Zi only uses the words once; Yin and Yang are not important to the development of what he is saying, which in my opinion is not just a philosophy but much much more. He may of simply created what is better called an "organized" spiritual-philosophy since the living aspects pre-date him; he lamented the present but wrote of the past. Which leads me to believe he was more spiritual than philosophical.

I hate to cross post but I posted in the thread by Stig and now see that I was trying to share something which this thread is essentially asking about. So I will put a rearranged and condensed version of it here. I want to start by saying that I think Dao is not a thing and closer to a process; likened to the rules of a game; the rules describe how the game will essentially run but ultimately it requires rule-abiders. The rules themself do NOTHING. They do not even EXIST. I see Dao as similar; Dao does NOTHING itself; thus it is NON-EXISTENT. I don't want to get too deep into how Dao makes it way into the 10,000 things but since some might get caught up in my point, I would say that is the role of "De"; De is Dao in us so that we are Dao-abiders. cross-post item, modified and re-arranged: Dao[ism] is but a shadow of what I call: the universal. Thus, Dao is not the universal itself but an aspect of it. I would say that the DDJ is but a slice of what Dao[ism] reveals about the universal. I liken it to what I call "living the many-realms". As you expand the realms revealed by Dao[ism], your slices begin to add up more and more and a view of the "universal" beings to take varying forms. The realms that I would offer as a start include: physical emotional psychological mental philosophical spiritual/soul energetical vibrational In my vision, all these realms interact with us and are maybe like concentric circles, but in x-Dimensions, and make up the universal. I would say everyone lives within and experiences the universal but may only experience slice(s) of it.

I might actually turn it around and say the exploration is really this: What daoism reveals can be included as making up the "universal aspect". Daoism is but a shadow of the universal; The DDJ but a slice. Thus, viewing daoism from only the philosophical aspect alone is to look at a slice of what Daoism reveals about the universal aspect. There should be nothing right or wrong about what parts one chooses. There should be no inferred belittlement either. The message I take from Stig, which I agreed with but will express with my own thought, is that as you expand the realms revealed by Dao[ism], your slices begin to add up more and more and a view of [what I call] the "universal" beings to form. IMO, Daoism (and I prefer to just say Dao) is not the universal itself. It is a part of it. I liken it to what I call "living the many-realms". The realms that I would offer as a start include: physical emotional psychological mental philosophical spiritual/soul energetical vibrational In my vision, all these realms interact with us and are maybe like concentric circles but in x-Dimensions. To me, these make up the universal. I would say everyone lives within and experiences the universal but may only get slice(s) of it. That is how I personally re-interpret Stig's points to my theory. Choose your realm(s) and experience life.

I think it's subjectively practiced or followed. My observation is that one finds many more in mainland china who utilize the practical (philosophical) aspects of Daoism (learned in school and general life) and what spiritual aspects they may have are handled more at buddhist temples; and yet in Taiwan the religious applications (and daoist temples) are more important. I do think that the Philosophical Dao distinction is more a western classification conceit but can be understood as part of the whole unfolding. What part each takes for their personal application or growth is their choosing... but I agree with Stig's next comment and my experience is the same. I didn't want to quote your whole post but I pretty much agree with all of it.

Yes, it seems a group can adopt any texts they want for their use and then claim them all as part of their lineage. When I hear people call the Yi Jing a daoist text, it seems this 'adoption' has occurred, to me. The only issue I see with this clean-cut transition is that there has always been a spiritual aspect; or dare I say it pre-dated the philosophical. Here is how I loosely see it, although I will admit I've never seen such a sequence drawn up: Spiritual/Shaman (Pace of Yu) >> Spiritual-Alchemy (Dao Yin) >> Spiritual-Alchemy-Philosophical (Qigong) >> Spiritual-Alchemy-Philosophical-Political (Huang-Lao) >> Spiritual-Alchemy-Philosophical-Political-Religious (Organized religions)

The phrase was most likely first coined by Sima Tan, father of Sima Qian who wrote the phrase in his monumental Shi Ji (Classic of History). He used it to differentiate the other 'schools of thought', as he (and his father) saw them: They were followers of the Huang-Lao philosophy which developed a few hundred years prior and was the state ideology for a while. In his history he covers the masters of this tradition. Ever wonder why Sima Qian's first chapter covers Huang Di? I think your argument would be more convincing if you had stuck to the origin of the phrase Dao Jiao, which was actually used much earlier and meant more like "Teachings of the Dao" and was used to describe anyone who might follow the principles of the Way, even if from another 'school'. This seemed a more universal and original.

First I will say. Great thread Stig... as usual. I agree with most of what is posted. But on this point I agree with Devoid here. And I suspect the reason for the non-response is common sense; Daoism (as a lived-by concept) pre-dates priests (even shamans). But that it was probably religious before it was philosophical I might agree. He does not need to prove you wrong. Honestly, you posted this so you would need to support it first... or your author would.

1. Your coming into this post 3 months later than the last post. it is possible some PMs occurred in that time. Don't assume or dictate too much 3 months later... common sense is good to embrace. 2. Quote your version. Thanks 3. Your moralistic action instead of intuitive stillness is just western god imposed on eastern ways. You can impose all you want but at some point you will be much better to drop it all and just listen as if you have never been told by another. That is actually close to impossible. But when you do it, you'll find someting very, very new. 4. Realize the west wants action. The east wants action but as non-action. If you want to just live the westerner way, you free to do so. But if you want to just impose western thought on eastern concepts, your stuck in dogma.

That was my point.. or, so I thought. What people call 'will' and 'purpose' is just the 10,000 arising and returning in the Oneness of existence.

Even intelligence seems to imply a 'thinking thing' (to borrow from the existentialist Sartre). For now, I have discarded: God, divine, will, intelligence or intelligent design. I tend to just use 'Universal' since it's quite generic and yet covers it all (at least for me). And it can be applied in many ways which fits in with ideas about Dao, IMO. I don't quite go as far as to say there is any kind of "will" out there since that may imply there is preference for one thing over another; but we know from DDJ5 that 'heaven and earth are without prejudice', as is the 'sage'. Dao does not seek anything itself; I will go as far as to say that it doesn't care about balance, order or equilibrium. Dao is non-existent and just the conceptual principle or rule in which we see generation and interaction. The only 'will' I could possibly suggest would be that the 10,000 things will arise and return (DDJ16) and attain oneness and thus existence (DDJ39). To me, that is the merging of will and purpose.

[1] All I can say is that I have a life, [1] the reason and purpose 1+1=2. Don't complicate it. As the philosophers might say: That there is something there [me] instead of not there [not me]. The problem is trying to make significance of the individual out of the whole... that is the de-evolution.

JMO... your stuck in hyper-Christianity. You can't quite think outside the 'manitou' box. 1. There is NO REASON or PURPOSE or WILL. There is only 'doing'. 2. There is NO GOING AGAINST. There is only 'doing'. You want some reason or purpose or determinism that speaks to the physical intellect. That is what binds you. If you step back far enough you will see a connection with: Physical, emotional, mental, psychological, Physiology, spiritual, universal, energetical When you feel these are all connected as one, what is there? (for some, this takes a moment and for others it takes a lifetime).

Actually, I think it should be in this subforum. Any talk regarding the Dao is probably good to discuss here since it rounds out the bigger picture that the DDJ presents. I will say that I was in very conservative christianity for many,many years. So I know the dogma and divisions quite well. I left because of the people abusing dogma to their end. I found the basic message and even some of the hidden meanings applicable today. But it was clear to me that people twisted it to their own end. I knew this was anything but 'natural', although at the time I was unaware of ideas about Dao. I might start by compare them as follows: Christianity - A higher transcendent powerful, spiritual being, omniscient, omnipotent, and with some afterlife conditions. The functioning of the system is moral based. It is more like moral law and gives rise to moral determinism and dualism. Moral objectivity leads to rule by law and advocates to instill the law upon man's heart (so he will follow God's mandates). Religious morality seeks to produces leaders who want laws. Religious leaders want people to follow in step. Dao - a universal principle (I would not use 'transcendent' since that usually carries an implication of knowledge too) of how things arise and generate. Neither omniscient nor omnipotent. The functioning of the system is cause-effect. It is more like natural law and determinism and gives rise to universal Oneness. Moral subjectivity leads and rule by 'non-action' and advocated to install non-action upon man's heart (so he follows the natural Way). Dao and De do not seek to produce leaders because ultimately 'the best leader is unknown to the people'. A sage does not seek to rule men. If anything, just be another guide to show them 'the Way'. I personally think the idea of 'free will' is one of man's greatest inventions. Of course I can try to convince myself that I choose to eat eggs instead of oatmeal this morning but that's looking at it from purely the physical moment alone. I think it is better to drop the concept altogether. Dao may be the closest thing that Chinese have to a God but it is ultimately different. I am not convinced that Dao is the end-all complete thing out there. It is the path or way; a part of the universalness that binds the physical to the emotional, mental, spiritual, and universal. I personally see something more universal than just the principle itself (Dao) since the principle is just relative to something. That just may mean that we are part of that universal. Which means we are not the physical aspect alone. That's my thoughts.

I am not sure if chapter 2 of the DDJ is the place to discuss christianity's compatibility to the ideas about Dao. You could start a thread in either the general forum or this subforum. I think the ideas of omniscience and free will are irrelevant to the ideas about dao. Consequence can be chosen to a degree but there is too much of a ripple effect to actually try and say you can capture all the consequences. So what's the point. There are pieces which seem compatible but there are fundamental differences too.

Yes, I think that is the point and why I replace the word "obedient" with the connection between 'thinking and doing'. Obedience is what you've choosen to follow (or do). In chinese, thinking and doing are inseparable. Consider the word "Xin" usually translated as 'heart'; it is more properly 'heart-mind' in classical chinese and in modern day it simply lives out that out too. In the west, we tend to separate the two facilities and so we are "all words and no action". There are many of these kinds of connections which exist in the east we don't hold in the west.

I am glad you made that clarification on 'good'. There was something missing in the use of just 'good' and this captures it well. For chinese, thought and action are linked. As to your 'grand scheme of supreme good'. Is this a reference or likening to, 志一天？

So it seems that 'embody wisdom' may be an apt way to describe the 'carrying on' of the sage.