Tao and the Tao Te Ching

[Stigweard]

[Procurator]

Thank you!

I see some Buddhist flavor in the translation. However, it didn't indicate where did Dao comes from...???

 

妙

[ChiDragon]

1. Descriptions of Dao,

Cannot be the eternal Dao.

2. Though names may be given,

They cannot be eternal names.

 

I can go along with the logic in 2 but not 1. It is because in many Chapters, LaoTze has many descriptions of Tao. How can Tao cannot be eternal...??? If Tao is not eternal, then why was LaoTze spending so much time in describing it...???

 

LaoTze has a good description of Tao in Chapter 14 indicating that Tao is formless but existed. Since Tao is formless, isn't there an indication that Tao is eternal...???

 

Chapter 14 The intangible Tao.

1. View it couldn't see, name and call it Colorless.

2. Listen to it couldn't hear, name and call it Soundless.

3. Touch it couldn't feel, name and call it Formless.

4. These three objects blended in one.

5. Its top not brilliant.

6. Its bottom nor dim.

7. Its continuance unnameable.

8. Returned to being nothingness,

9. Is called form of no form.

10. An image of nothingness,

11. Is called obscure.

11. Greet it cannot see its head.

13. Follow it cannot see its back.

14. Grasp the presence of Tao,

15. Driven all the present physical being

16. Able to understand the ancient origin,

17. It's called the Principles of Tao.

Edited June 12, 2011 by ChiDragon

[Stigweard]

I can go along with the logic in 2 but not 1. It is because in many Chapters, LaoTze has many descriptions of Tao. How can Tao cannot be eternal...??? If Tao is not eternal, then why was LaoTze spending so much time in describing it...???

LOL you misread what I posted

 

Dao is "eternal" but descriptions of Dao are not. My opening two lines says that quite clearly.

 

[dawei]

However, it didn't indicate where did Dao comes from...???

妙

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?

[ChiDragon]

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?

 

Yes, I am with you all the way, but 玄 is very difficult to translate into English, even in Chinese was still hard to comprehend this character.

Edited June 12, 2011 by ChiDragon

[ChiDragon]

LOL you misread what I posted

 

Dao is "eternal" but descriptions of Dao are not. My opening two lines says that quite clearly.

 

 

Descriptions of Dao, cannot be the eternal Dao.

 

Do you mean this line says Dao is eternal.....????

[Stigweard]

Descriptions of Dao, cannot be the eternal Dao.

 

Do you mean this line says Dao is eternal.....????

Yup

[dawei]

Descriptions of Dao, cannot be the eternal Dao.

 

Do you mean this line says Dao is eternal.....????

 

You can see it clearly enough here:

 

Descriptions of Dao,

Cannot be the eternal Dao

 

It's implied by the above.

[ChiDragon]

Descriptions of Dao, cannot be the eternal Dao.

 

Okay, If I follow your logic correctly, then any description of Tao was indicating that Tao cannot be the eternal Tao. What about the descriptions of Tao in Chapter 14 by LaoTze. Is he describing the eternal Tao or not....???

[dawei]

Descriptions of Dao, cannot be the eternal Dao.

 

Okay, If I follow your logic correctly, then any description of Tao was indicating that Tao cannot be the eternal Tao. What about the descriptions of Tao in Chapter 14 by LaoTze. Is he describing the eternal Tao or not....???

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.

Edited June 13, 2011 by dawei

[ChiDragon]

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.

 

Is that how we interpret and come to a conclusion by our personal feeling about the age of the document; and are we playing games here....???

 

1. Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao.

2. Tao that can be spoken cannot be the eternal Tao.

 

May I ask you this; "is not" and "cannot be" are they saying the something...???

To me, "is not" but there is still a possibility that "can be". However, "cannot be" everything was locked out. Do you see the nuance in the logic.

 

Besides, the character 非(fei1) means "not" but not "cannot be".

 

PS...

It would be appreciated if one just get to the point with the relevancy of the subject.

May I ask everyone to keep the personal part out of the discussion, so, it can be more constructive...??

[Stigweard]

Descriptions of Dao, cannot be the eternal Dao.

 

Okay, If I follow your logic correctly, then any description of Tao was indicating that Tao cannot be the eternal Tao. What about the descriptions of Tao in Chapter 14 by LaoTze. Is he describing the eternal Tao or not....???

Hiya ChiDragon, methinks you are trying to twist Laozi to support your own world view. This is actually more than OK, we all are perpetrators of this to at least a small extent; it's how we learn and evolve from Laozi's wisdom.

 

Both in Ch1 and Ch14 my insignificant view is that Laozi is highlighting our desperate and ultimately futile need to hold and label something. We can't see the form of Dao so we try and describe it as invisible, we can't hear it so we try and describe it as inaudible, we can't grasp it so we try and describe it as intangible.

 

But just as the descriptive "Dao" is not the eternal Dao or the subtle universal truth, neither are any of these other descriptives. And yet Laozi presents us with the possibility that the unseen, unheard, unreachable essence of Dao can be attained or experienced.

 

[Eric23]

Alan Watts in The Watercourse Way likens Tao to electricity. We can measure, use, discuss, transmit, generate, develop theories about electricity. However no one has actually defined it, what usually passes as a definition is really a description of what it does.

[ChiDragon]

Hiya ChiDragon, methinks you are trying to twist Laozi to support your own world view. This is actually more than OK, we all are perpetrators of this to at least a small extent; it's how we learn and evolve from Laozi's wisdom.

 

Both in Ch1 and Ch14 my insignificant view is that Laozi is highlighting our desperate and ultimately futile need to hold and label something. We can't see the form of Dao so we try and describe it as invisible, we can't hear it so we try and describe it as inaudible, we can't grasp it so we try and describe it as intangible.

 

But just as the descriptive "Dao" is not the eternal Dao or the subtle universal truth, neither are any of these other descriptives. And yet Laozi presents us with the possibility that the unseen, unheard, unreachable essence of Dao can be attained or experienced.

 

I must thank you for your gushing compliment in accusing me of being trying to twist Laozi to support my own world view. I would like you to know that I don't have the wisdom or the intelligence of LaoTze to rewrite the Tao Te Ching. The only thing that I can do is to translate it as close as possible without more or less. My goal was not to add more to twist the meaning or have less to have something get lost in the translation.

 

I was only translating Chapters 1 and 14 of what it says in the classic text. I am not perfect but I think I'm capable of translating the TTC to an 80 to 90% accuracy without guessing its meaning, of course, with some good references and reliable sources.

[dawei]

Is that how we interpret and come to a conclusion by our personal feeling about the age of the document; and are we playing games here....???

 

1. Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao.

2. Tao that can be spoken cannot be the eternal Tao.

 

May I ask you this; "is not" and "cannot be" are they saying the something...???

To me, "is not" but there is still a possibility that "can be". However, "cannot be" everything was locked out. Do you see the nuance in the logic.

 

Besides, the character 非(fei1) means "not" but not "cannot be".

 

PS...

It would be appreciated if one just get to the point with the relevancy of the subject.

May I ask everyone to keep the personal part out of the discussion, so, it can be more constructive...??

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

[dawei]

I must thank you for your gushing compliment in accusing me of being trying to twist Laozi to support my own world view.

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.

[ChiDragon]

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.

 

My friend, it seems you like to speak for others and speculate too.

Edited June 14, 2011 by ChiDragon

[Stigweard]

I must thank you for your gushing compliment in accusing me of being trying to twist Laozi to support my own world view. I would like you to know that I don't have the wisdom or the intelligence of LaoTze to rewrite the Tao Te Ching. The only thing that I can do is to translate it as close as possible without more or less. My goal was not to add more to twist the meaning or have less to have something get lost in the translation.

 

I was only translating Chapters 1 and 14 of what it says in the classic text. I am not perfect but I think I'm capable of translating the TTC to an 80 to 90% accuracy without guessing its meaning, of course, with some good references and reliable sources.

Aww crap here we go

 

ChiDragon we ALL interpret Laozi according to our own world view ... it's unavoidable. I do it, James Legge did it, Suzuki did it and every fool who tries to render a Chinese character into English will do it.

 

Of course you believe you are correct, thats fine and dandy. I grant you the right to question and challenge my translation and interpretation anyway you wish, and I most certainly reserve the right to question and challenge yours.

 

So please take any criticisms as just the way things are when you post here at TaoBums.

 

[ChiDragon]

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

 

Chapter 25

故道大(Thus Tao da4)

天大(heaven da4)

地大(earth da4)

人亦大(human da4 too)

域中有四大(there are four great's in the region)

 

You lost me. So, how are you going to talk about 大(da) then...???

How are you going to point out which 大(da4) is Tao.....????

[ChiDragon]

Aww crap here we go

 

ChiDragon we ALL interpret Laozi according to our own world view ... it's unavoidable. I do it, James Legge did it, Suzuki did it and every fool who tries to render a Chinese character into English will do it.

 

Of course you believe you are correct, thats fine and dandy. I grant you the right to question and challenge my translation and interpretation anyway you wish, and I most certainly reserve the right to question and challenge yours.

 

So please take any criticisms as just the way things are when you post here at TaoBums.

 

 

Stigweard...

I never did say that I wouldn't take any criticisms or challenges. Of course, they are welcome as long they are legitimate and logical. However, it would be utterly impossible for me to respond if it was too much off basis. I am not claiming that I am right nor have full authority on the subject matter. Anyone can ignore my translation is one's choice. But personal attacks, it is most lightly cannot be tolerated. I am just saying this, it was not pointing at anyone.

[dawei]

Of course, they are welcome as long they are legitimate and logical.

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

[dawei]

My friend, it seems you like to speak for others and speculate too.

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.

[Stigweard]

Stigweard...

I never did say that I wouldn't take any criticisms or challenges. Of course, they are welcome as long they are legitimate and logical. However, it would be utterly impossible for me to respond if it was too much off basis. I am not claiming that I am right nor have full authority on the subject matter. Anyone can ignore my translation is one's choice. But personal attacks, it is most lightly cannot be tolerated. I am just saying this, it was not pointing at anyone.

**Sigh**

 

You think that your rendition of Laozi is the purest??? That's fine. You are entitled to think so.

 

I will repeat my previous post to keep the dialogue moving in a constructive direction:

 

Both in Ch1 and Ch14 my insignificant view is that Laozi is highlighting our desperate and ultimately futile need to hold and label something. We can't see the form of Dao so we try and describe it as invisible, we can't hear it so we try and describe it as inaudible, we can't grasp it so we try and describe it as intangible.

 

But just as the descriptive "Dao" is not the eternal Dao or the subtle universal truth, neither are any of these other descriptives. And yet Laozi presents us with the possibility that the unseen, unheard, unreachable essence of Dao can be attained or experienced.

 

[ChiDragon]

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.

 

I speak for the Chinese language as my first language. I can see that we are having a communication problem here already....

 

 

PS...

@Stigweard, when are we going to have that chess game that you mentioned sometime age.....???