ChiDragon

The point I was trying to make is that MWD-B was written in 隸書(Official Style) which the style that Liu2 Bang1 was adopted to. In addition, his name was 邦 was replaced with 國 in this version. PS.... MWD-A was written in Seal style before Liu Bang become the ruler of the Han Dynasty.

Another thing to assure that MWD-B was written in the Liu Bang period. It was because the names of the next two emperors(盈 and 恒) were not replaced with other characters yet. MWD A and B TTC

Yes, there was a typo. I mistyped as MDW-B. It has been corrected to MWD-B. The answer to your question is NO. I mean MWD-B as I had originally stated. Please look at the time table carefully. I will look into the Li Shu matter. Thanks! Edited to add: Yes, you are right 隸書(li shu) was started in the Quin Dynasty. The change from seal style to the official style was during the transition period between the Quin and the Han period. However, the Li Shu style had reached to its peak of perfection in the Han Dynasty. Ref: 隸書, Li shu

No, only a HARD head........

The change of the character style. During the Warring States, each state has a writing style of characters. Regardless, all their styles were in 篆書(Seal style). After the first emperor of Han(劉邦 Liu2 bang1) defeated the last emperor of Chu(楚霸王), Liu2 adopted the ruling principles from the TTC. However, the TTC was written in the Seal style(篆書) which was very difficult to read. Hence, Liu2 created the Official style called 隸書(Li4 Shu1). This can be justified by looking at the Time Table. At the beginning of the Han Dynasty, MWD-A copy of the TTC was written in Seal style(篆書). Then it was revised to the Official style(隸書). Furthermore, since the name of the first emperor of the Han Dynasty was 劉邦(Liu2 bang1), therefore, all the characters of 邦(bang1) was changed to 國(guo2). In the classic, during the Warring States, the character 邦(bang1) means country; and 國(guo2) means region. Since the change was made, then 國(guo2) means country. In the modern time, 國(guo2) becomes a country or a small country and 邦(bang1) means a big Nation like the United States. The intention of this post is to prove that the MWD-B version of the TTC was written in the period of the Han Dynasty between the years of 劉邦(Liu2 bang1) 206 – 195 BCE. It was because of the changes of the character style and the character 邦(bang1) was replaced with 國(guo2).

If we read the chapters in original classic: Part A has the following contents: 1. The principles to rule a country. 2. Description of Tao. 3. Cultivation of the principles of Tao. Part B Cultivation of the principles of Tao. Part C 1. The principles to rule a country. The author of each group doesn't seem to be the original author who came up with those ideas. These chapters in each group seem to be premeditated to be copied from another source. This observation had been agreed upon by the knowledge native scholars and seconded to a certain extent by both English scholar E. Ryden and American scholar R. Henricks(MH ).

Let me clarify something here. Li Er(李耳) was Lao Zi's real name; 耳 means ear Lao Dan(老聃) was his nickname; 聃means hang. Please notice his ears are so big and hanged. So, people gave him a nickname by calling him Lao Dan(老聃). In modern time, 老(lao) was added in front of the surname to address someone as Lao Li for Lao Zi. For John Chang, it would be Lao Chang but would never call him Lao John.

It's interesting to see that the chapters in the Guodian TTC version are not in sequence as the contemporary version. Perhaps, let's investigate why they were grouped as such....!!! Part A Blatt 1 Bundle A1-6: 章 #19, #66, #46, #30, #15, #64,x Blatt 2 Bundle A7-11: 章 #37, #63, #2, #32, #25 Blatt 3 Bundle A12-17: 章 #5, #16, #64,x, #56, #57, #55 Blatt 4 Bundle A18-20: 章 #44, #40, #9 Part B Blatt 5 Bundle B1-5: 章 #59, #48, #20, #13, #41 Blatt 6 Bundle B6-: 章 52, #45, #54, Part C Blatt 7 Bundle C1-3: 章 #17#18, #35, #31, Blatt 8 Bundle C4: 章 #64,x Ref: Guodian TTC Version

The tomb was robbed couple times. Fortunately, there was not many items taken. The original TTC in Guodian was unharmed. However, the TTC was found in three parts. Each part was hand copied with three different handwriting. Since the copied were reproduced, it could be in any form. One shouldn't be surprised if the TTC did not have a complete set in the tomb. Edited to add part of the introduction of the Guodian slips: Translation in red: Due to the many robberies of the tomb, there are some missing bamboo slips. Thus there was no exception to the LaoZi version of the TTC. Ref: another source of Guodian TTC

Let's start with the earliest copy of the Tao Te Ching in the Table: 1. 郭店 Guodian 476 – 278 BCE; 篆書(Seal style); Unearthed:1993; Published: May 1998 Why the Guodian TTC(楚簡) is the oldest copy? Let's look at its characteristics! The style of the book was the earliest form which ever existed in China. It was made out of bamboo strips; and the characters used were in seal style. The seal style is the most difficult to read besides it was written in the Chinese classic. Furthermore, the book made out of bamboo strips are so difficult to carry from one place to another. Therefore, most people memorized and pass it on by the word of mouth. During the transition in the oral communication, the sound of the character may be altered or misunderstood by the listener. As time changes, the story changes along with it. This is there are so many errors frm copy to copy. As a rule of thumb, one should not and cannot just pick up any copy of the TTC without correcting the existing errors before making interpretations or translations. That is why it is so important to understand the history during the critical period where and when the TTC was most active.

adept... This thread is assuming that Lao Zi does exist at time time, in order, to carry on with the discussion. You may start a new thread if you want.

This time table is very important for showing the changing phase of the Tao Te Ching by the sequence of events. Besides the time periods, we should pay close attention to the names of the emperors of the Han Dynasty. At the time, it was a taboo to use the name of an emperor in any document. The style of the character that was used in the TTC will dominate which version is prior to another. In addition, some of the characters in the TTC will be changed in according to whomever was in power of the Han Dynasty at the time. Some of the incorrect characters were used which do not make sense is because they were not the actual characters but only phonetics. I will do my best to analyze the Tao Te Ching by going over the special characteristics of each version. Hopefully, we don't have too many interruptions during the course of evaluation. Thank you very much for your cooperation.

Sorry. This is too late to be discussed here in this thread.

Goowday...Don't worry about the English. The hell with it. Let me give a sense of confidence just to get your point across. Some of the members speak good English but putting out garbage. Sometimes, one will attack the English rather than pay close attention to the contents. Sorry, people, I just need to spit it out of my system.

Of course not, you want others to do all the dirty work for you...... FYI.... This table will help one to determine the changing phase of the Tao Te Ching. The sequence of events by the style of characters, the emperors of the Han Dynasty, and the contents of the TTC will indicate why it was changed to the way it is. In addition, it will indicate who were existed at the same time to see if there was a possibility which they had met each other or not.

There was nothing written to indicate that Zhuang Zi had, actually, read the Tao Te Ching. However, we may find out from comments of the native scholars. Translation: The thinking of Zhuang Zhou(庄周) was referred back to Lao Zi(老子). The central part of Lao Zi Classic was based on the political philosophy of 自然無為(natural and wu wei). In the Zhuang Zi Classic was to explore and discover oneself within a deep dark society; and how to extricate oneself and self survival in an adverse environment. The author reckon that a primordial chaotic state is an ideal society. All the man made systems and cultural measures are violating the natural instinct of humans. Hence, it was meaningless and valueless. Ref: http://www.people.com.cn/BIG5/14738/14760/21871/2936807.html

Mark..... Boy, aren't you confused and please don't confuse others.

Marblehead... This one is not in Korean. Next time you do your own homework....!!! Confucius meets Lao Zi

According to the ancient historian 司馬遷, his record had indicated that Confucius did meet Lao Zi three times in his life time before 521 BCE. Also, we have records of their dialogue. Ref: http://tw.knowledge.yahoo.com/question/question?qid=1509110203787

So far, no!

It was known the Lao Tzu is Lao Tan for century. Why the hell you bring Derek Lin into this? What the hell he knows? IMO He mistranslated chapter one so bad as a Native speaking Chinese. I can cite you more than one Chinese source in saying that Lao Tzu is Lao Tan.

Yes, there were many codex of the Tao Te Ching with errors before the Guodian version. Some of the errors were corrected based from the unearth copies of Guodian and MWD. Even these versions have lots of errors by use phonetics to replace the actual characters at the time. Btw, the unearth copies were still not the original of the Tao Te Ching. They were codex just like the rest of the existing ones. If they were not written, then it would be recitals passed on by the word of mouth. If people decided to write it down, some characters may be just phonetics which why we are seeing so many errors and the original meanings of some phrases were twisted.

Bull's eye. You did it. Thanks H.E. That was no assumption, Lao Tan(老聃) is Lzo Tzu(老子) himself. Now, we may come to a conclusion that Zhuang Zi did read the Tao Te Ching after all.

Exactly, they are just going in the opposite direction. It works for both. However, I have to give the credit to Lao Zi because he was born way before Zhuang Zi. Somehow, Zhuang Zi has to be stolen the idea from Lao Zi in order to apply the concept on himself.

Well, if you put it that way. Actually, both are trying to deal with the government one way or the other. Lao Zi wants to improve it while Zhuang Zi tried to run away from it all. Another words, Lao Zi want the government to take the initiative to give freedom to the people. However, Zhuang Zi wants to free himself from the government on his own. He is not against the government but just want to have nothing to do with it to save all the headaches.