[TTC Study] Chapter 15 of the Tao Teh Ching

[dust]

He did the same with A and B of the MWD. What 'felt' better to him was what he used. But again, I'm not sure he has a deep understanding of Chinese ancient culture so his choices might wee be argued.

 

My argument is generally with his linguistic ability/choices, rather than his understanding of culture.

 

However, I don't want to turn this into a Henricks thread, or my end of it into a Henricks-bashing session (which is probably what it looks like I'm trying to do...!)

 

So I'll try to stop insulting his work... and will post my own translation of 15 soon enough, which you guys can bash

Edited September 30, 2014 by dustybeijing

[Marblehead]

and will post my own translation of 15 soon enough, which you guys can bash

Which I am fairly good at doing. Hehehe.

[dust]

So...perhaps someone will entertain a question or 2

 

According to Henricks:

 

 

必非弱玄达深不可志 without doubt subtle and profound, mysterious and penetratingly wise

 

 

Why does this mean this?

 

This is an important one for me.

 

Not just because of the problem i have with the language/translation itself (and major language issues continue, with respect to the GD, for the next few lines),

but also because -- to me -- this chapter even as traditionally understood doesn't make any sense from a Taoist perspective.

 

According to Wu:

 

The ancient adepts of the Tao were subtle and flexible, profound and comprehensive. Their minds were too deep to be fathomed.

 

 

Why would Laozi be lauding the ancients so? Profound, mysterious? Comprehensive?? Why, if in other chapters we're taught that simplicity, dimness, and lack of learning are good? Why, if elsewhere we're told to abandon discussion and wisdom?

 

Chapters 19, 20, 58, just for 3 that I can think of, praise a lack of knowledge and sharp wit.

 

What makes it oddest for me is that the rest of this chapter, chapter 15 itself, calls the ancients hesitant, cautious, simple, confused... So are they simple and obvious, or profound and mysterious? Surely we're talking about the beauty of a lack of profundity, mystery, or even conventional wisdom?

Edited October 15, 2014 by dustybeijing

[Marblehead]

Excellent questions. I'll present my take on this.

 

Lines 1 & 2:

 

The one who was skilled at practicing the Way in antiquity,
Was subtle and profound, mysterious and penetratingly wise.

 

 

These are inner qualities: profound but hidden with subtlety; wise but mysteriously so.

 

These qualities are not worn on the outside to dazzle others. This is why his/her appearance is as described in Lines 6 - 12.

 

Remember that both Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu considered knowledge and wisdom two completely different concepts.

 

Knowledge is used to dazzle others; wisdom is used to help one's self and others.

 

And much of lines 6 - 12 can be linked to the Three Treasures.

[Taoist Texts]

What makes it oddest for me is that the rest of this chapter, chapter 15 itself, calls the ancients hesitant, cautious, simple, confused... So are they simple and obvious, or profound and mysterious?

the chapter says : 故{強為}之容，曰：therefore we at least describe tenuously their exterior behavior...

 

so they are simple on the outside and profound on the inside. To commoners they appear as passive fools - this is their simplicity; but things tend to work out for them without the commoners being able to understand how - that would be their profundity.

 

 

Also, being simple and yet profound at the same time it is not a contradiction in terms. The sea is also both simple (because there is nothing but water in it) yet also it is profound since the sea waters are deep.

[Harmonious Emptiness]

Excellent questions. I'll present my take on this.

 

Lines 1 & 2:

 

The one who was skilled at practicing the Way in antiquity,

Was subtle and profound, mysterious and penetratingly wise.

 

 

These are inner qualities: profound but hidden with subtlety; wise but mysteriously so.

 

These qualities are not worn on the outside to dazzle others. This is why his/her appearance is as described in Lines 6 - 12.

 

Remember that both Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu considered knowledge and wisdom two completely different concepts.

 

Knowledge is used to dazzle others; wisdom is used to help one's self and others.

 

And much of lines 6 - 12 can be linked to the Three Treasures.

 

 

There is a genius that lies under the intellectual, extractive, abstractive mind. The process of creativity.

[Marblehead]

There is a genius that lies under the intellectual, extractive, abstractive mind. The process of creativity.

Yeah, I like to look at it from the view of wisdom having grown out of knowledge and then knowledge was discarded. Kinda' like Chuang Tzu saying that once we grasp the concepts we can forget the words.

[dust]

Okay, alright... [Denzel Washington voice]

 

I get what you're saying..

But I'm not entirely convinced.

 

For one thing, I'm not sure why we need all the fluff, as the Chinese isn't actually quite that fluffy

(subtle and flexible, profound and comprehensive; subtle, mysterious, profound, responsive; dark, wondrous, profound, penetrating...wow...)

 

For now, some thoughts on the more modern versions (as nobody wants to talk about GD ):

 

 

The ancients were ancient i.e. they lived long ago. And according to one version of the first line, they were close to Tao.

 

They weren't close to the Tao because they were clever, or good at finding it, but because they were like it.

 

We're talking simple, "untainted" by knowledge, and beyond wisdom. Like a dog or a tree is beyond wisdom.

 

More than just not dazzling with knowledge, they would have no concept of wisdom, and no need to be something different on the outside than on the inside.

 

So yes, insofar as they were close to Tao, they were subtle and mysterious, as Tao is. But we shouldn't mistake this for any clever subtlety or trickery, that they were somehow able to be better at living than the "commoners" because they'd found some special mode of conduct that others didn't have. Before the Way was lost, all people were simple and untainted by knowledge -- it was the natural way of things.

 

 

 

These qualities are not worn on the outside to dazzle others. This is why his/her appearance is as described in Lines 6 - 12.

 

 

the chapter says : 故{強為}之容，曰：therefore we at least describe tenuously their exterior behavior...

 

A slightly different point, but would 強 not refer to 勉强, as in "reluctantly" or in other words "if I'm forced to describe them..." ?

 

More importantly:

容 doesn't necessarily mean appearance; its original meaning was "store" or "hold within". And though I agree that this usage is that of 形容 or 容貌, that still doesn't necessarily mean we're purely describing their exterior with no thought to what's inside.

 

If they were really that simple, free from dazzling and trickery, their outside and inside character would be the same. Then the author is saying that "though I cannot describe exactly what was going on in their heads, by describing how they acted and moved I can give you some idea of what they were like."

 

In other words,

 

古之善為士者，微妙玄通 The noble ones of old were subtle masters of the mystery

(or)

古之善為道者，微妙玄通 The ancients who were in line with the Way were subtle masters of the mystery

深不可識 deep beyond our understanding

夫唯不可識，故強為之容 As they were beyond our understanding, if I had to describe them / we might describe them as...

 

and we then get a description of people who were hesitant, timid, cautious, yielding, simple, confused.

Not just because some people appeared that way, but because all people were once like that.

[dust]

And I won't stop with the GD.

What do these mean?

必非弱玄达深不可志 (Henricks)

必非溺玄達深不可志 (the way it actually seems to be written)

If we could take an academic approach and ignore for now preconceived notions of what Taoism should say it says, and base our understanding on what a "Taoist" writer might have been thinking in Chu, and what these characters meant right then..that would be cool. Because I'm fairly convinced by now that this guy had a slightly different take on some of these chapters than the people who changed the text for the later versions.

[Taoist Texts]

Dusty,

 

If they were really that simple, free from dazzling and trickery, their outside and inside character would be the same.

thats the point - they were not that simple, TTC says they appeared simple.

 

 

 

Then the author is saying that "though I cannot describe exactly what was going on in their heads, by describing how they acted and moved I can give you some idea of what they were like."

 

that is exactly right.

 

In other words,

 

 

古之善為士者，微妙玄通 The noble ones of old were subtle masters of the mystery

(or)

古之善為道者，微妙玄通 The ancients who were in line with the Way were subtle masters of the mystery

深不可識 deep beyond our understanding

夫唯不可識，故強為之容 As they were beyond our understanding, if I had to describe them / we might describe them as...

 

and we then get a description of people who were hesitant, timid, cautious, yielding, simple, confused.

 

no, not who were. who appeared so.

 

 

Not just because some people appeared that way, but because all people were once like that.

no. if all people were like that there would not be the main paradigm of taoism - division of humankind into commoners and sages, kings and subjects, gods and men. IMHO, you are obliterating primordial elitism with the 18th century egalitarianism.

 

[Marblehead]

thats the point - they were not that simple, TTC says they appeared simple.

And let us not forget that Lao Tzu has been credited with being the first philosopher of camouflage.

[Marblehead]

I get what you're saying..

But I'm not entirely convinced.

Oh, I'm not trying to convince you. It's just my take.

 

And my take also is that when folks talk about the wisdom of the ancients they are stretching the truth to the breaking point. While it is true that they lived closer to nature I think it is an error to suppose that they had all this great wisdom. They didn't even have very much knowledge of the physical world.

[Marblehead]

And I won't stop with the GD.

What do these mean?

 

 

I can pull my Henricks translation off the shelf any time but I must speak to the English translation, not the Chinese characters.

[dust]

Perhaps I am convinced, I just don't like it... I shall continue to play devil's advocate, just to be sure

 

Why must we say that they only appeared so?

 

I fully get what you're saying, 容 is to describe their appearance, but why only their appearance -- why is their appearance entirely at odds with their actual character? That is pure trickery, and is not inherently profound.

 

"by describing how they acted and moved I can give you some idea of what they were like" is to say that how they acted and moved describes what they were like. For example, I can't know what's going on in a dog's head, but by looking at his external behaviour I can make a decent guess as to what he's "thinking"

 

 

no. if all people were like that there would not be the main paradigm of taoism - division of humankind into commoners and sages, kings and subjects, gods and men.

 

At one point, there were no people. When people came along, we didn't suddenly explode into all the types we now see. It was gradual. But it started with something.

It was when people first started realizing that we could manipulate nature, and each other, with our intelligence (language) that the in-lineness with Tao was lost.

 

 

 

And my take also is that when folks talk about the wisdom of the ancients they are stretching the truth to the breaking point. While it is true that they lived closer to nature I think it is an error to suppose that they had all this great wisdom. They didn't even have very much knowledge of the physical world.

 

Well, yeah..! That was my point, really. Wisdom didn't exist. We might call it wisdom, because we don't understand it.

 

 

 

Alas, the GD doesn't give me much help...

 

是以爲之頌

 

頌 can be the same as 容 in meaning "description" or "appearance", although it also means "laud" or "ode", and appears in Mencius to have meant "recite" or "repeat" :

 

頌其詩，讀其書，不知其人，可乎？是以論其世也。是尚友也

He repeats their poems, reads their books, and as he does not know what they were as men, to ascertain this, he considers their history. This is to ascend and make friends of the men of antiquity.

- Mencius

 

As Mencius was writing at around the same time as the GD writer (though I realize not in the same place), might it not be possible that 頌 meant "repeat" or even "laud"

[dust]

I can pull my Henricks translation off the shelf any time but I must speak to the English translation, not the Chinese characters.

 

长古之善为士者 Those who were good at being noble in antiquity

必非弱玄达 Were without doubt subtle and profound, mysterious and penetratingly wise

深不可志 So deep that they cannot be known

是以为之颂 For this reason we praise them in the following way

 

Actually, my linguistic beef with H this time is with the first 2 lines

"good at being noble" ?

"without doubt" ?

"penetratingly wise" ?

 

But he translates 颂 as "praise", which I quite like!

[dawei]

no, not who were. who appeared so.

 

CH. 15 - Bertschinger

 

Of old the best masters of the Path were subtle in their ways and hid their understanding.

They were profound and could not be recognized. Because they could not be

recognized, all we can do is describe their appearance.

Wary as fording streams in winter; alert as fearing attack from any side;

courteous as visiting guests; yielding like ice about to melt; genuine as an

uncarved block of wood; broad in view as a valley; unrefined like muddied water.

Who can wait quietly and still while the mud slowly settles? Who can be

motionless long enough, until slowly they come to life?

Those who kept to this Path never desired fullness. Never desiring fullness,

they could be worn out and made anew.

[Marblehead]

Well, at least we can say that his translation of the MWD did not influence how he translated the GD.

 

Line 1 is significantly different:

 

The one who was skilled at practicing the Way in antiquity,

 

and,

 

Line 2 did not contain "without doubt".

 

And yes, "praise" seems much better than "forced to describe".

 

But I see no problem with "subtle and profound, mysterious and penetratingly wise". (But remember, I am a military man and this might influence how I view this.)

[dust]

Of old the best masters of the Path were subtle in their ways and hid their understanding.

 

"hid their understanding" I assume he got from 玄通, but 玄 elsewhere is not used as a verb to mean "hide"..

 

隐 would be more likely if "hide" was intended, no?

 

 

Because they could not be

recognized, all we can do is describe their appearance.

 

Could not be "recognized" mentally, we assume?

[Taoist Texts]

At one point, there were no people. When people came along, we didn't suddenly explode into all the types we now see. It was gradual. But it started with something.

Yes. You see the start was different in judeo-xtian vs. oriental models. In the former

 

According to Genesis 2:7 "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." Hence jeffersonian 'all men created equal', which is a "self evident truth"

 

but

 

 

 

She began creating human beings fromyellow clay, sculpting each one individually. After she had created hundreds of figures in this way, she still had more to make but had grown tired of the laborious process. So instead of handcrafting each figure, she dipped a rope in clay and flicked it so blobs of clay landed everywhere; each of these blobs became a common person. Nüwa still laboriously crafted some people out of clay; these people became nobles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N%C3%BCwa#Creator

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It was when people first started realizing that we could manipulate nature, and each other, with our intelligence (language) that the in-lineness with Tao was lost.

True dat.

[Marblehead]

 

CH. 15 - Bertschinger

 

Of old the best masters of the Path were subtle in their ways and hid their understanding.

They were profound and could not be recognized. Because they could not be

recognized, all we can do is describe their appearance.

Again this supports my suggestion regarding camouflage.

[Marblehead]

 

Could not be "recognized" mentally, we assume?

Or "could not be seen through their camouflage".

[dust]

 

But I see no problem with "subtle and profound, mysterious and penetratingly wise". (But remember, I am a military man and this might influence how I view this.)

 

It seems to me that meanings are being added which aren't in the Chinese

 

微妙玄通

 

微 means "slightly" or "not obviously" or "weakly", 妙 means "wonder", but together

 

微妙 -- subtle

 

So we have 2 characters left:

 

玄通 -- mystery + fully/expert/understand/open/through

 

IMO, only 1 of these last meanings should be chosen. There is no 4-word meaning to be found.

 

 

subtle and flexible, profound and comprehensive -- why flexible? comprehensive seems odd?

 

subtle, mysterious, profound, responsive -- if we choose "mysterious", "profound" is fluff. Responsive?

 

Dark, wondrous, profound, penetrating -- penetrating is a literal translation of 通, but...odd choice of word?

 

subtle and profound, mysterious and penetratingly wise -- why subtle and profound, mysterious and "penetratingly wise" ?

[dawei]

"hid their understanding" I assume he got from 玄通, but 玄 elsewhere is not used as a verb to mean "hide"..

 

隐 would be more likely if "hide" was intended, no?

 

This guy's translation focuses on Heshang Gong's commentary... so HSG sees this as hidden understanding... but it may be a bit clever to consider how the hidden aspect occurs.

 

 

Could not be "recognized" mentally, we assume?

 

I think there is fluidity in how to recognize...

[Marblehead]

Okay. Let's look at two other translations of the MWD.

 

Red Pine

 

The ancient masters of the Way

aimed at the indiscernible

and penetrated the dark

you would never know them

 

 

Wayne Wang

 

The ancients who have mastered Tao

are subtle and attain the ultimate, and

are profound beyond comprehension.

 

Admittedly, Red Pine does a transliteration but Wayne Wang did his best at a literal translation.

 

So the question would be, in my mind, did Henricks add words that weren't there?

[dust]

Yes. You see the start was different in judeo-xtian vs. oriental models. In the former

 

According to Genesis 2:7 "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." Hence jeffersonian 'all men created equal', which is a "self evident truth"

 

but

 

She began creating human beings fromyellow clay, sculpting each one individually. After she had created hundreds of figures in this way, she still had more to make but had grown tired of the laborious process. So instead of handcrafting each figure, she dipped a rope in clay and flicked it so blobs of clay landed everywhere; each of these blobs became a common person. Nüwa still laboriously crafted some people out of clay; these people became nobles.

 

Good point. I'm not clear on how Taoism (especially BCE) connects with creational mythology.

Are we sure that these wonderful Taoist writers bought into all that? Surely the Way was the source? (and then 1, 2, 3...万物)

 

 

Nüwa appeared in literature no earlier than c. 350 BC. (....) It is sometimes believed that Nüwa molded humans from clay for companionship.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_mythology

 

If Laozi was, as people say, around from 500BC or so, and predates Nvwa, is she relevant..?

And if these texts were being developed a bit later.. well, the GD was written sometime around the creation of Nvwa, in Chu, and

 

The Chu culture and government strongly supported Taoism and native shamanism supplemented with some Confucian glosses on Zhou ritual

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chu_%28state%29#Culture

 

Which suggests that, in the GD at least, this myth might not have held much weight, if it was known at all?

 

 

(also, no longer relevant, but what I've read of the OT suggests a lot of favouritism from God! Jefferson was cool but (or because) he was misrepresenting the Bible!)