[TTC Study] Chapter 42 of the Tao Teh Ching

[stan herman]

[ChiDragon]

Look at the Mawangdui versions; there is a different character.

Is this what you meant...???

I am referring both versions with the characters corrected in ().

 

MWD-A

http://findpath.web.fc2.com/laozi/mawangduijia.html

浴（谷）神【不】死

 

MWD-B

http://findpath.web.fc2.com/laozi/mawangduiyi.html

浴（谷）神不死

Edited June 16, 2011 by ChiDragon

[dawei]

Is this what you meant...???

I am referring both versions with the characters corrected in ().

 

MWD-A

http://findpath.web.fc2.com/laozi/mawangduijia.html

浴（谷）神【不】死

 

MWD-B

http://findpath.web.fc2.com/laozi/mawangduiyi.html

浴（谷）神不死

You can think of it as a correction if you want. And you can discuss it further at the chapter 6 post if you want.

[ChiDragon]

While your interests are focused on the translations, mine were captured by the meanings. I found this particularly interesting:

 

"Men hate to be "orphaned," "widowed," or "worthless,"

But this is how kings and lords describe themselves.

For one gains by losing

And loses by gaining."

 

I would assume there is another more traditional interpretation than the way I look at these lines. To me, in the "Tao Now" (contemporary) perspective, it says that kings and lords assume a mantle of humility to enhance their image--(not that their behaviors necessarily conform to that image).

 

Stan, I don't mean to condemn or criticize other translations. I just happened to be understand the language with a cultural background to do the translation. Of cause, with the help of a reliable native source which is the consensus among the knowledgeable native scholars.

 

"Men hate to be "orphaned," "widowed," or "worthless,"

But this is how kings and lords describe themselves.

 

It seems to me that this is just the general notion of the translator with a half understanding of the classic text.

 

By looking at the characters, I know they are saying this:

8. 唯孤、寡、不穀，

Only Loneliness, Celibacy, Unkind,

 

9. 而王公以為稱，

Are used by the kings and dukes to address themselves as such.

 

In the modern movies, the characters acting as kings are still using these terms 孤 and 寡 to address themselves. This term 不穀 was not in use anymore. I only saw it in the Tao Te Ching.

[ChiDragon]

You can think of it as a correction if you want. And you can discuss it further at the chapter 6 post if you want.

 

Dawei...

It is not a matter of just what I want. If we are studying this document which is more than two thousand years old. The characters are evolved with many changes as the time goes by. We can't just taken it for granted. We must consider them very closely. There must be a justification for our reasoning.

 

浴（谷）神不死

Let's look at the character 浴. In modern Chinese, it means "bath". However, it could have had the meaning as "valley" two thousand years ago. Here is my reasoning. It has a "water" radical at the left and the "valley" radical at the right. In the ancient time, the characters were written in pictographs. Hence 浴 could be interpreted as water is flowing in a river or valley implicating that was a river or a valley. The modern character with the "water" radical dropped becomes 谷 as "valley"

 

In both documents MWD-A and MWD-B has the same pictograph with an indication which is more incline to have the meaning as "valley".

1. 浴神不死

2. 谷神不死

 

Let's look at the translations:

1. The spirit of the bath will not die.

2. The spirit of the valley will not die.

 

Which one makes more sense and logical to you, line 1 or 2.....???

[Marblehead]

1. Did you get the idea from Chapter 6 for the personification of Tao as a female God...???

2. Do you think LaoTze believes in god....???

3. Why is incorrect to personify Tao...???

 

I don't think doing so is necessarily incorrect, I just don't do it. Remember, I am an Atheist.

 

I almost believe that Lao Tzu did believe in a Supreme Creator.

 

Chapter 6 The mysterious female.

1. 谷神不死

1. The spirit of the valley never dies.

The 'mysterious female', Yin, the negative polarity of Chi, pure energy, never dies.

2. 是謂玄牝。

2. Is called the mysterious female.

 

The place of rest.

 

3. 玄牝之門

3. The door of the mysterious female

 

Leaving the material world behind for a time in order to attain rest.

 

4. 是謂天地根。

4. Is called the root of heaven and earth.

 

Yin is the root of all things, Yang, the positive is the things' actions.

 

5. 綿綿若存，

5. Seems eternally existed

 

Yes, seems that way because it truely is.

 

6. 用之不勤。

6. With endless reproduction.

 

The process of creation, destruction and renewed creation. (Of course, I hold to the concept of the universe eventually returning to Singularity and this cycle will continue eternally.)

 

Note: LaoTze referred Tao as the "spirit of the valley".

 

This is not valid, in my understanding. The feminine (Yin) is the spirit of the valley.

[Marblehead]

Here is how I understood it.

All things are being alive because they have gained the ONE.

 

I can't buy this (in bold).

 

On gaining the One, etc, I think is referring to the returning to the One before the death of the manifest form.

[dawei]

I can't buy this (in bold).

 

On gaining the One, etc, I think is referring to the returning to the One before the death of the manifest form.

I didn't want to be the one to say it... ditto. Start over.

[Procurator]

 

1. 浴神不死

2. 谷神不死

 

Let's look at the translations:

1. The spirit of the bath will not die.

2. The spirit of the valley will not die.

 

Which one makes more sense and logical to you, line 1 or 2.....???

heh)) they both make zero sense, spirit of the valley is as nonsensical as spirit of the bath. they both are erroneous, it was a diff character initially.

[ChiDragon]

[ChiDragon]

heh)) they both make zero sense, spirit of the valley is as nonsensical as spirit of the bath. they both are erroneous, it was a diff character initially.

What was a diff character initially...???

 

The reason that LaoTze use 谷神, spirit of the valley, is because "valley" has the characteristics of Tao as abyssal, vacuous, and serene.

[Procurator]

What was a diff character initially...???

 

榖

 

The reason that LaoTze use 谷神, spirit of the valley, is because "valley" has the characteristics of Tao as abyssal, vacuous, and serene.

hmm, no that makes no sense. there is no spirit in the valley. those are contrived rationalisations by native speakers who lost ties to traditional teachings.

[Marblehead]

OK. Guys, I started over. I consulted with my source.

All things are able to be developed because they have gained the One. One is Tao.

 

Hehehe.

 

I would agree with this if you added ... developed to their full potential because ...

 

Let us remember that when we are manifested we have been 'separated' from the One. Upon recognizing we were never truely 'separated' is when we gain the One. (Separation was only a delusion.)

[Marblehead]

 

hmm, no that makes no sense. there is no spirit in the valley. those are contrived rationalisations by native speakers who lost ties to traditional teachings.

 

Hehehe. I am not knowledgeable of the origins but I think you might be right.

[dawei]

Hehehe. I am not knowledgeable of the origins but I think you might be right.

I tend to agree too. After this was raised in the chapter 6 post, I looked into this more. Even found two other ancient texts using 浴神, and in none of the cases is there anything remotely concerning a valley. Even "bath" is clearly wrong and carries no logic.

 

Maybe 'bathe' might be closer but like you can 'bathe' in sunlight, possibly meaning to bathe in the spirit (ie: as in the flow of you breathing when meditating). The Bao Pu Zi has more like 'bathe in the inner gods'. So clearly there is something alchemy or mystical meant, not a valley. So I think Laozi meant the same thing.

 

Another thing nobody mentions, is: Where did the phrase come from? Liezi says this was a saying of the Yellow Emperor. So Laozi is clearly just quoting an older source (the same way that St. Paul in the bible even quoted a poetic phrase). The Yellow Emperor is the paradigm for attaining immortality; so if the phrase originates with him, that gives more support to the alchemy/mystical line of thinking.

 

The problem is, IMO: If you only look at the DDJ to understand the DDJ, you will not really get to understanding all of it's meaning since Dao (and Daoism) is much bigger than the DDJ or Laozi. We have to get beyond translating a word for a word and get to the meaning. I have slowly learned this lesson myself over the years and still fall back into it but I am convinced of this myself.

 

I just wish someone would move all these discussions to chapter 6 since it has nothing to do with chapter 42.

[dawei]

I would agree with this if you added ... developed to their full potential because ...

 

Let us remember that when we are manifested we have been 'separated' from the One. Upon recognizing we were never truely 'separated' is when we gain the One. (Separation was only a delusion.)

The passage is about "all things", not just man. So do trees, rocks, birds, etc need to gain or need to develop to their full potential also? I personally don't think so.

 

So I think the passage is more general to all things rather than trying to find a meaning which fits only for man.

[Procurator]

 

 

Another thing nobody mentions, is: Where did the phrase come from? Liezi says this was a saying of the Yellow Emperor. So Laozi is clearly just quoting an older source

it comes from the agricultural religion.

[Marblehead]

The passage is about "all things", not just man. So do trees, rocks, birds, etc need to gain or need to develop to their full potential also? I personally don't think so.

 

So I think the passage is more general to all things rather than trying to find a meaning which fits only for man.

 

Good point. But, I still think it is only man (humans) that has this problem due to the 'learning' we undergo mostly during our youth. I think that most of us are molded into something other than what we truely are and therefore we do not live 'naturally'.

 

Nearly all other manifestations have no choice but to be what they truely are.

[ChiDragon]

榖

 

 

1. hmm, no that makes no sense. there is no spirit in the valley.

2. those are contrived rationalisations by native speakers who lost ties to traditional teachings.

 

1. In the same token. There was no such thing as Tao. LaoTze made Tao and used different names to describe Tao.

 

2. This remark seems too open-minded for me.

 

Both characters 榖(gu3) and 谷(gu3) pronounced the same. It was traditional to borrow the sound of a character in the Chinese language, especially, when there were only just enough characters to be used at the time.

[ChiDragon]

The passage is about "all things", not just man. So do trees, rocks, birds, etc need to gain or need to develop to their full potential also? I personally don't think so.

 

So I think the passage is more general to all things rather than trying to find a meaning which fits only for man.

 

In general, I am totally agree.

 

Good point. But, I still think it is only man (humans) that has this problem due to the 'learning' we undergo mostly during our youth. I think that most of us are molded into something other than what we truely are and therefore we do not live 'naturally'.

 

Nearly all other manifestations have no choice but to be what they truely are.

 

 

In the case about 'learning', I agreed partially. However, when all things are able to be fully developed to their physical being, then I'm totally agree.

 

I have a question. The Tao Te Ching always mentioned all things, heaven, earth, human, and Tao separately. Do you think he treated each of these as a separated entity....???

[dawei]

Good point. But, I still think it is only man (humans) that has this problem due to the 'learning' we undergo mostly during our youth. I think that most of us are molded into something other than what we truely are and therefore we do not live 'naturally'.

 

Nearly all other manifestations have no choice but to be what they truely are.

I agree with what you are saying about man... but I don't apply the line to only man. Since it says "all things" I think the interpretation needs to keep that in mind.

[ChiDragon]

The problem is, IMO: If you only look at the DDJ to understand the DDJ, you will not really get to understanding all of it's meaning since Dao (and Daoism) is much bigger than the DDJ or Laozi. We have to get beyond translating a word for a word and get to the meaning. I have slowly learned this lesson myself over the years and still fall back into it but I am convinced of this myself.

As I said before, the Tao Te Ching is a piece of stand alone document but you don't have to agree with me. All the definitions are well defined and self supported in different chapters within the TTC. It just a matter of finding and use them. If one tries to use other definitions from different philosophers other than the Tao Te Ching, then one was just confusing the issue and ran away the basic definition of the TTC farther and farther.

 

PS...

Sorry, this is only my approach and may not be suitable for others.

Edited June 17, 2011 by ChiDragon

[ChiDragon]

CD: "What was a diff character initially...???"

榖

oops.......

How less I know. Look what I have found.

link: 榖

[Marblehead]

 

I have a question. The Tao Te Ching always mentioned all things, heaven, earth, human, and Tao separately. Do you think he treated each of these as a separated entity....???

 

Yes I do. However, this subject is very deep and I don't know if I will be able to express myself properly.

 

Lao Tzu spoke of the difference between the Manifest and the Mystery. He did speak of Chi but not that deeply even though he did speak to the polarities of Yin and Yang pretty well.

 

I think this is why he spoke to the concepts of Tao, Heaven, Earth, and man. This, in my understanding is that he recognized the separation even though I think his understanding was that this separation is only superficial.

 

Even the concept "One begat two, two begat three and three begat the ten thousand things" leans toward the idea of separation.

 

But, he also spoke of cycles and reversion (return) so even though there is temporary separation all things return to One.

[Marblehead]

I agree with what you are saying about man... but I don't apply the line to only man. Since it says "all things" I think the interpretation needs to keep that in mind.

 

Hehehe. Okay, I have to agree with you to a degree because of what Chuang Tzu pointed out. Example: He stated that a tree bearing sweet fruit brings on its own destruction. The story of the "Useless Tree" is even a better example.