ChiDragon

Explain, please....!!!

1. 道可道非, 常道。 2. 名可名非, 常名。 If you think these two line make sense, then, you need to translate into English for me to see what do you mean and how do you mean. If you agree to do it scholarly, then, you must explain it yourself instead relying on others to do the justification for you. BTW I had specified that before, The Tao Te Ching is a piece pf stand alone document. Therefore, everything must be used within the Tao Te Ching for explanation. If you bring something from the outside of the TTC, then you are just bringing contaminants to the TTC. Unless it was really pertinent to the case. Otherwise, it was not very scholastic. PS.... No one need to ask for justification of anything. It is up to you to do the justification because it is your presentation. If you don't give a good reason to begin with, then no one is interested.

Yes, it was a clever way of LaoTze to introduce 無 and 有 by showing the duality for the different state of manifestation of Tao. Chapter One tells a lot if one can read it scholarly. "he complementing of yin and yang....一陰一陽之謂道 yin-yang-one-interaction" That was the hidden message in Chapter One for someone to grok it.

He is serious; he left, didn't he....???

SB..... Sorry, no such animal.

oh! dawei.... Based on your comments, it only reveals your level of comprehension. I'll repeat, it is a matter of comprehension. Now, we are getting to a point it is either you know it or you don't. There is no argument about it. If you don't see that there is no difference in sets One and Two, then, I don't really know what to tell you.

" But I know this is not what the native scholars had in mind. " Is that a fact....??? "You only claim proper chinese... but if this is ancient chinese without punctuation then we have to be careful to play a trump card of 'proper chinese'... and you didn't ask for what was their justification; only stated it is in error. This is not scholarly like. One should at least ask if there is any justification and then they can decide for themself..." Sorry, very poor reasoning. One must has the cultural experience and it takes more comprehension to grok all that. Sometimes, it hard to put it in words. Sorry, I'm being to harsh on you.....peace.

Set One 1. 道可道，非常道。 2. 名可名，非常名。 Set Two 1. 道,可道，非常道。 2. 名,可名，非常名。 Linguistically, the second set with the additional comma did not effect the logic of the first set. **************************************************************************************************** Received Version: The 名 in lines 3 ans 4 was used as a verb in the Received Version. 3. 無，名天地之始。 4. 有，名萬物之母。 Common Version: The 名 was compound with 無 and 有 to make it as part of the adjective. Thus 無名 and 有名 are adjectives in the Common Version. 3. 無名，天地之始。 4. 有名，萬物之母。 ***************************************************************************************************** This one is not acceptable as proper Chinese because it doesn't make sense. As a scholar in the comprehension of Chinese, I will have to disqualified you on this one. 1. 道可道非, 常道。 2. 名可名非, 常名。 Sorry, when it comes to any scholastic errors, I will have no mercy but to point them out....!!!

I thought line 7 was a good justification made by the native scholars. As a matter of fact, it was a consensus among the native knowledgeable scholars. I would like to hear the response from takaaki.....!!!

A. Sorry, I don't understand. B. How does line 2 tied to line 1 shown that there is continuity.....??? 1. 道可道，非常道。 2. 名可名，非常名。

Are you suggesting that "Wu Ming" and "You Ming" as "These two come from one origin but differ in name".....???

The original philosophy was intended for the killer to begin with. If the killer had followed the principles of Tao, then the events wouldn't have been taken place. BTW LaoTze's philosophy about Wu Wei was more concerned about the abusive action against the good other than the bad. There is a profound subtlety in his philosophy.

Well, killing weeds was not considered to be abusive in LaoTze's philosophy but killing people would be....

Reed.... Can you just look at Chapter One alone by itself without any outside influence.....??? You are confusing yourself from what you have learned in the past. Everything was defined in the chapter with not assumptions. What I am try to do is to avoid the same mistake that you are making. As I was saying before, the TTC is a piece of stand alone document. It does not need any outside influence for its interpretation. However, there are exceptions when it was written in metaphors. BTW You have jumped the gun before I was finish with my analysis....!!! Reed: "Assuming visible means the five standard senses" 4. Visible, it(Tao) was named as the mother of all things. It was clear that line 4 was indicating the "Visible" is Tao, not the five senses as you'd assumed. Please keep in mind from a scholastic point of view, Lao Tze hasn't teaching any of his philosophies in Chapter One. Indeed, he was only given an introduction of Tao.

Scholastic analysis for: Common Version of Chapter 1. 3. 無名，天地之始。 3. Having no name, it is the beginning of Heaven and Earth. 4. 有名，萬物之母。 4. Having a name, it is the mother of all tings. 7. 此兩者同出而異名 7. These two come from one origin but differ in name, For the same token, where are the "two" come from one origin....??? I cannot find them in lines 3 and 4 as I would have found in the Received Version.

Scholastic analysis for: Received Version of Chapter 1. 3. 無，名天地之始。 3. Invisible, it was named as the origin of heaven and earth. 4. 有，名萬物之母。 4. Visible, it was named as the mother of all things. 7. 此兩者同出而異名 7. These two come from one origin but differ in name, The key to draw to a conclusion is based the logic in line 7. It says these "two" from one origin but differ in name. The two differ in name were referred to the "無" and "有", "Invisible" and "Visible", the two name given to Tao in two different states. The two states were: 1. The beginning(origin) of heaven and earth, Invisible, Tao was in an unmanifested state. 2. As the mother of all things, Visible, Tao was in a manifested state. The origin was referred as "Tao". Everything seems to be felt in place and the logic flows. PS.... Please keep in mind from a scholastic point of view, Lao Tze hasn't teaching any of his philosophies in Chapter One. Indeed, he was only given an introduction of Tao.

Let's discuss our way of life, according to our values and our attitudes, to find out how far off the mark we are in relation to the eternal Way (道 i.e.Tao). John Lennon's Way (道) of Living, as told in his song "Imagine" would be as follows: No Heaven, no Hell, and above us only sky. (Meaning no religion, shamanism, spiritualism.) All the people (百姓) living together for today. (No dwelling on the past, no planning for the future.) No countries. (No nationalism, no territorial divisions.) Nothing to live or die for. (No conflicts, no dreams and no wants.) No possessions. (Public or private.) Lennon said that his Way (道 i.e.Tao) will lead to: No need for greed and hunger. All the people, sharing all the world, living life in peace. Is John Lennon's dream practicable and consistent with the teaching of the Tao Te Ching?

FYI.... Since you can read the characters, you may copy and paste any character or phrase(s) on google or any search engine to find some good native sources.

It was not a confusion but just disturbing. I believe I always get to the point on some important issues for saving time. Sometimes, I was probing the brain of the counterpart in a special situation. I don't think it was quite the same as in your approach.

You are not trying hard enough. Maybe you should hire somebody.........

Common Version of Chapter 1 1. 道可道，非常道。 2. 名可名，非常名。 3. 無名，天地之始。 4. 有名，萬物之母。 5. 故常無欲，以觀其妙。 6. 常有欲，以觀其徼。 7. 此兩者同出而異名， 8. 同謂之玄。玄之又玄， 9. 眾妙之門。 The commas in lines 3, 4, 5 and 6 has been moved one place to the right. This common version was used by many to do the translation. 3. 無名，天地之始。 3. Having no name, it is the beginning of Heaven and Earth. 4. 有名，萬物之母。 4. Having a name, it is the mother of all tings. 5. 故常無欲，以觀其妙。 5. Always without desire, one would grok its quale. 6. 常有欲，以觀其徼。 6. Always with desire, one would observe its boundary. With the comma in different a place, do you see the difference in the translation between the Received and Common Versions....??? As a scholastic approach, the first thing to do is to place the comma in their proper place. That will give the translator a general idea about the context within perspective to see the overall picture of a Chapter.

I am glad to hear that. I was expecting a response like this for a jump start to move forward. Thanks.

I understand all that. The thing that is when you quote someone, you do not make changes to the wording. That means you are changing the original idea of the initiator which is very misleading causing misunderstanding. It is better off for you to make your own statement. That is where I am getting at. To save time and effort, I think this kind of miscommunication should be avoided as possible. Most of the time I was spending here was to try to be clear of what you are saying. However, it was always one thing leads to another is very time consuming.

無為(Wu Wei): 不妄為(no abusive action) The philosophy behind Wu Wei is to take no abusive action to interfere with Nature. Let Nature take its course.

The part one might be missed, in the TTC, about "The Art of War" was: "To win a war is not to start a war." Thus no one wins is the biggest triumph of it all.