[TTC Study] Chapter 42 of the Tao Teh Ching

[stan herman]

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.

 

Chi, thanks much for the above. It is fascinating to think how much interpretation, personal projection, political correctness must go into the translations. AND my guess is that much of the translation currently available is based on previous translations--perhaps many--since the original writing.

[ChiDragon]

Chi, thanks much for the above. It is fascinating to think how much interpretation, personal projection, political correctness must go into the translations. AND my guess is that much of the translation currently available is based on previous translations--perhaps many--since the original writing.

Stan...

Sorry to say it, that's EXACTLY.

[lienshan]

But Tao gave birth to One. Y'all know that.

 

Tao gave birth to one.

One gave birth to two.

Two gave birth to three.

Three gave birth to everything.

Everything carry Yin on the shoulders and embrace Yang.

Bathwater and Qi are considered complementary.

 

An awake reader reads the last sentence as Laozi is making a distance to what he has written.

That was Laozi's way of telling the awake reader, that he is actually quoting somebody else!

 

People hate being orphaned, lonely, and unworthy.

Yet kings and nobles call themselves such.

 

And the two next lines indicate, that the opposite of what he has quoted is the fact, that'll say:

 

Tao didn't give birth to one.

One didn't give birth to two.

Two didn't give birth to three.

Three didn't give birth to everything.

Everything do not carry Yin on the shoulders and embrace Yang.

Bathwater and Qi are not complementary.

 

The problem is quite simple, that most readers read the Tao Te Ching straight as if it was a cookbook

[Marblehead]

Well, I will give you credit for the effort but that is all.

 

I have never known of a king or noble who called themself any of those negative things. In fact, the ones I have read of were pretty damned arrogant.

 

No, I will not add to nor take away from the Tao Te Ching. However, there are some things I do not accept as truth contained within. (Understandings change over time.)

 

Tao gave birth to One and don't 'cha ever forget it.

 

What "One" is can be debated. In today's scientific mind it is hydrogen. (I prefer Chi [pure energy].) (I have to remember that Tao follows Tzujan so I must conclude that Tao and Tzujan already existed prior to the Big Bang.)

 

And yes, the bathwater. I always drain mine out after I am finished with my bath. But I have become a part of that bathwater after the bath is finished.

Edited May 23, 2013 by Marblehead

[dawei]

What "One" is can be debated. In today's scientific mind it is hydrogen. (I prefer Chi [pure energy].) (I have to remember that Tao follows Tzujan so I must conclude that Tao and Tzujan already existed prior to the Big Bang.)

 

I would suggest there are two "Ones";

1. Singularity of non-differentiated state; Wu-State

2. The first state after this state, but is manifest; You-State

 

In most cosmologies, Qi is the #2 above. It then separates into Light and Heavy; Heaven and Earth.

[Marblehead]

Yes, I will agree that the Wu-state could be considered the state of "Oneness".

 

Of course, the You-state would be similar to the Ten Thousand Things, IMO.

 

Yes, energy take many different forms. It can also be unformed and that is why I can't totally disagree with Vmarco's "undivided light" concept.

[dawei]

Yes, I will agree that the Wu-state could be considered the state of "Oneness".

 

Of course, the You-state would be similar to the Ten Thousand Things, IMO.

 

Yes, energy take many different forms. It can also be unformed and that is why I can't totally disagree with Vmarco's "undivided light" concept.

 

I am not really trying to convert or convince you... so don't take my continued discussion like that...

 

But I would say that there must be some sort of 'phase' transition (think 5 phase theory) whereby there is a Wu-Oneness and a You-Oneness. There is some momentary cross-over point where the undifferentiated One becomes a differentiated One.

 

Undivided Light makes sense to me. I would like to hear VMarco's comments on this context we're discussing.

[Marblehead]

I am not really trying to convert or convince you... so don't take my continued discussion like that...

Oh!, believe me, convert/convince has no place in our discussions. But it is so nice to make our brains think about something that has value to us.

[Marblehead]

But I would say that there must be some sort of 'phase' transition (think 5 phase theory) whereby there is a Wu-Oneness and a You-Oneness. There is some momentary cross-over point where the undifferentiated One becomes a differentiated One.

You know what? You just caused me to think the word "religion". Yes, you would find this within any religion. Yes, I am still an Atheist.

[dawei]

You know what? You just caused me to think the word "religion". Yes, you would find this within any religion. Yes, I am still an Atheist.

 

Then your thinking is going in the wrong direction... it has nothing to do with that. Maybe the conversation is over.

[Marblehead]

Then your thinking is going in the wrong direction... it has nothing to do with that. Maybe the conversation is over.

Perhaps. But then, how else can I think than with my own brain? I can't think your thoughts.

 

Your use of the term "differentiated One" messed with my mind. These are the Ten Thousand Things. But there are many. Yes, actually more than ten thousand. But I wouldn't call them "One", but more at "one" or better still, "each".

[rene]

There is some momentary cross-over point where the undifferentiated One becomes a differentiated One.

 

stay calm as you approach this gateless gate (-: for it is both eternal and ephemeral, ever present, everywhere.

 

warm regards

[dawei]

Tao gave birth to one.

One gave birth to two.

Two gave birth to three.

Three gave birth to everything.

Everything carry Yin on the shoulders and embrace Yang.

Bathwater and Qi are considered complementary.

 

I've seen you mention the Shuo Gua quite a few times recently.

 

I wondered if you had thought the following line applies in any way to this chapter:

 

 

"The number 3 was assigned to heaven, 2 to earth, and from these came the (other) numbers."

[Marblehead]

And he is still playing in his bathwater. I wonder if he has a rubber ducky.

[lienshan]

I've seen you mention the Shuo Gua quite a few times recently.

I wondered if you had thought the following line applies in any way to this chapter:

 

"The number 3 was assigned to heaven, 2 to earth, and from these came the (other) numbers."

 

Yes I have. I think that the first four lines of chapter 42 is a commentary to the Shuo Gua numbers,

while the line five is a commentary to the Yin-Yang position in the Ta Yi Sheng Shui cosmology,

and the line six is a commentary to Shui as meaning both the Yellow River and the Milky Way.

 

My reading tells me, that both the taoist paragraphs of Shuo Gua and the Ta Yi Sheng Shui cosmology

are composed by one single author!

[ion]

Without effort it is, and dwells in emptiness;

emptiness is twofold,

and between the two who are one is a third,

and these three produce the producers of all things.

The producers achieve production by ignoring duality accepting relativity & not rejecting eachother.

What people dislike most is desolation.

Desolation is close to emptiness and creation.

So with all things remain close to the begining which abides in nothingness;

Take less, but have so much more.

Violent consumption leads to an un-natural death.

[Marblehead]

Well, I can't "Like" that one but it is different. Maybe if I really tried hard I could like it.

[RisingSun]

I want to state my understanding of this passage generally, and then get your feedback. It's my understanding that the original Chinese doesn't specify what one, two, and three are; it simply says one, two, three (一, 二, 三) and commentators don't agree on what these numbers represent. Is my understanding correct?

 

How have most professional Chinese intellectuals interpreted this passage over the years? Is there any interpretation that is most common?

 

Here are some different versions I was thinking of:

 

Interpretation A:

 

One is Taichi

Two is yin-yang

Three is Heaven, Earth, Man

 

Interpretation B:

 

One is Taichi

Two is yin-yang

Three is Heaven, Earth, Chi

(Myriad creatures would include Man)

 

Interpretation C:

 

One is Chi

Two is yin-yang

Three is Heaven, Earth, Man

 

Interpretation D:

 

One is Hydrogen

Two is Helium

Three is Lithium

 

Thoughts on these? I'm leaning towards interpretation B or D. Taichi must come before yin-yang, right?

Edited September 25, 2014 by RisingSun

[Marblehead]

Interesting thoughts. And true, in my understanding the TTC does not specify what One, Two, and Three are.

 

From a Taoist view, I think it is:

 

One = Chi

Two = Wu (Mystery, potential)

Three = Yo (Manifest, 10,000 things)

 

 

From a scientific view:

 

One = Hydrogen

Two = Helium

Three = Stars (which produce all heavier elements)

[Taoist Texts]

I want to state my understanding of this passage generally, and then get your feedback. It's my understanding that the original Chinese doesn't specify what one, two, and three are; it simply says one, two, three (一, 二, 三) and commentators don't agree on what these numbers represent. Is my understanding correct?

 

How have most professional Chinese intellectuals interpreted this passage over the years? Is there any interpretation that is most common?

Yes there is, as laid down by one of the earliest commentaries Heshangong (2 CE) , which has those as 三生萬物。天地人共生萬物也 Heaven Earth Man. One has to remember that in early cosmology numbers do not have to represent anything. The Number and The Word are cosmic forces per se.

 

also this

 

https://www.academia.edu/4212037/_Forming_Spirits_for_the_Way_The_Cosmology_of_the_Xianger_Commentary_to_the_Laozi._

[dawei]

Yes there is, as laid down by one of the earliest commentaries Heshangong (2 CE) , which has those as 三生萬物。天地人共生萬物也 Heaven Earth Man. One has to remember that in early cosmology numbers do not have to represent anything. The Number and The Word are cosmic forces per se.

 

I wrote about this here, see down at Post #5 on whether there is some basis for Laozi using 1,2,3:

http://thetaobums.com/topic/32324-cosmology-in-ancient-chinese-text/

 

If I had to choice one of the Interpreations by RaisingSun, it would be a form of "C".

 

I still find the Huainanzi passage the best cosmological picture (and next the six great stages at my link above).

 

I'll give the Huainanzi here so others can consider the original as well. I'll give a bold heading to show how I interpret it:

 

天墜未形，

馮馮翼翼，

洞洞灟灟，

故曰太昭。

道始于虛霩，

虛霩生宇宙，

宇宙生氣

氣有涯垠.

清陽者薄靡而為天，

重濁者凝滯而為地。

清妙之合專易，

重濁之凝竭難，

故天先成而地後定。

天地之襲精為陰陽，

陰陽之專精為四時，

四時之散精為萬物。

 

The Great One / HengXian (supported by: Tai Yi Sheng Shui , HengXian, Lushu Chunqui, Huangdi sijing, Huainanzi, Book of Rites)

Prior to the Opening of the Universe

and pouring down of all life forms

This is called the Primal Illumination.

 

Dao

Dao awoke out of this boundless void.

 

ONE

The boundless void gave rise to the cosmos;

The cosmos gave rise to [Primal] Qi.

[Primal] Qi spread as a shoreline.

 

TWO

That which was clear and bright formed into Heaven;

That which was heavy and impure formed into Earth.

It is easy for that which is clear and bright to uniformly gather [as the sky]

But difficult for the heavy and impure to solidify [as earth and matter].

Therefore Heaven was completed first, and Earth afterwards.

The coiling essences of Heaven and Earth formed into Yin Yang.

The uniformly gathering essences of Yin Yang gave rise to the four seasons.

 

THREE

The disseminating essences of the four seasons created the ten thousand things.

[Taoist Texts]

I wrote about this here, see down at Post #5 on whether there is some basis for Laozi using 1,2,3:

http://thetaobums.com/topic/32324-cosmology-in-ancient-chinese-text/

 

If I had to choice one of the Interpreations by RaisingSun, it would be a form of "C".

 

I still find the Huainanzi passage the best cosmological picture (and next the six great stages at my link above).

 

I'll give the Huainanzi here so others can consider the original as well. I'll give a bold heading to show how I interpret it:

 

 

Fantastic work Dawei, and to build on it further now I riddle you this: why all things need the Three (whatever those are) to get born? Why not they are not born straight from Dao or One or Two?

[dawei]

I riddle you this: why all things need the Three (whatever those are) to get born? Why not they are not born straight from Dao or One or Two?

 

Interesting question... I have not thought about that. Instead of guessing, I'll hear you out

[Taoist Texts]

Interesting question... I have not thought about that. Instead of guessing, I'll hear you out

Nobody thinks about these things except Marblehead. He knows.

[dust]

I hadn't considered that the 3 things might be actual things... just figured that they represent the vast multitude of stages that end up with us and all the other complex creatures... as I can see it's certainly not as simple as "1, 2, 3"

 

If the author was referring to specific ideas such as yinyang etc, why not just refer to them directly?

Edited September 26, 2014 by dustybeijing