[TTC Study] Chapter 44 of the Tao Teh Ching

[ChiDragon]

1. Yeah, but that would take the first three lines out of sequence of the "this or that" contrasting.

 

But yes, death is more harmful than is gain or loss of material things.

 

2. Of course we could say: Possessions or life, which is more beneficial?

 

But that wouldn't be fair to the original text.

 

But you stay with the original Chinese as much as you can. I will do the interpretations. Hehehe.

1. I don't quite follow you here.

 

Edited to add to rephrase line 3 as a scenario only:

"Gain and loss of fame and goods" or death which is more harmful?

Would that fall back into sequence...???

 

2. Of course we could say: Possessions or life, which is more beneficial?

 

In line 3. 得與亡孰病。

The character 病(bing4) is a negative thought as opposed to "beneficial". It may be a good interpretation if one wish to twist the meaning but not a closest translation within context per se.

 

Edited to add:

PS...

If you put line 2 into a positive sense, then you would be braking LaoTze's habit. LaoTze likes put a positive thought in a reverse negative logic.

Edited June 27, 2011 by ChiDragon

[dawei]

Looking at the first few lines, it seems the choice between the two items is implied. To me the implied items are the negative attributes, otherwise there is really no reason to talk about them and then later mention their lose and waste; one would otherwise just be preaching to the choir.

 

The final word (親) in line 1 has often bothered in arriving at the right word. Reflecting on the chapter again, the idea of ‘dear’, ‘intimate’, ‘precious’, ‘love’ are not my first idea. If another person was involved or implied then I would see the use of these. But that last word can also relate to the ‘self’ (used or implied throughout), in which case I see this more as a round of questions concerning items how people tend to desire too much and do not seek contentment:

 

Which does one seek, distinction/fame or self? (The implied answer is distinction fame)

Which does one value, self or goods? (The implied answer is goods)

Which does one worry, gain or loss? (The implied answer is loss [of goods])

[such] Attachments are a great waste (Non-attachment is a gain of self)

[And] Storehouses result in liberal losses. (A loss of goods; echoes a waste of time)

For this reason:

To know what is enough is not to self-depreciate (it brings self-contentment)

To know when to stop is not to exhaust (no waste; no loss)

This is enough [to produce] a long life.

Edited June 28, 2011 by dawei

[Marblehead]

1. I don't quite follow you here.

 

Hehehe. Hey, sometimes I don't even know why I have said something.

 

2. Of course we could say: Possessions or life, which is more beneficial?

 

I think Chuang Tzu did that. (Can't rememeber where though.)

 

Edited to add:

PS...

If you put line 2 into a positive sense, then you would be braking LaoTze's habit. LaoTze likes put a positive thought in a reverse negative logic.

 

I will still say that the translation should be as true to the original as possible. The interpretation is what we can play with.

[Marblehead]

[dawei]

Actually, I see three steps of this chapter. The first three lines set the stage, the next two is the transition, the last four (or three) state the concept (lesson).

That's exactly what I was after. Not sure if you are affirming or saying I don't quite get there.

[Marblehead]

 

After watching my father suffer for over 2 years with severe CBD, seeing him holding on in shear misery, his passing was anything but harmful. In fact, his caretakers and health providers did indeed cause more harm by keeping him alive those last couple of weeks.

 

_/\_

 

Yeah. Chuang Tzu speaks to not accepting our demise when the time is at hand. I think that to put someone on a bunch of tubes so they can live a couple months longer is wasteful. (But the medical profession sure does make a lot of money by doing it.)

[Marblehead]

That's exactly what I was after. Not sure if you are affirming or saying I don't quite get there.

 

Hehehe. I'm not usually cryptic. Yes, you got there. I think that most others got there as well even though the process may note have been noted.

[dawei]

Hehehe. I'm not usually cryptic. Yes, you got there. I think that most others got there as well even though the process may note have been noted.

by starting your sentence with "actually" it sounded like a contrast to what others were suggesting. Now I understand what you meant: That everyone got there without saying it, but you wanted to say it

[ChiDragon]

Yeah. Chuang Tzu speaks to not accepting our demise when the time is at hand. I think that to put someone on a bunch of tubes so they can live a couple months longer is wasteful. (But the medical profession sure does make a lot of money by doing it.)

LaoTze would have had let Nature take its course by letting the person go without delay.

 

Chuang Tzu would have had celebrated for someone's death because it was ending all the miseries that the person was going through. That was why Chuang Tzu was beating on a pan and singing for the death of his wife.

[Marblehead]

LaoTze would have had let Nature take its course by letting the person go without delay.

 

Chuang Tzu would have had celebrated for someone's death because it was ending all the miseries that the person was going through. That was why Chuang Tzu was beating on a pan and singing for the death of his wife.

 

Yep.

 

Hehehe. Nothing more to say at the moment.

[stan herman]

hehehehe..........

This is only part of the learning process of the Tao Te Ching. All misunderstandings are ironed out only by talking it out. Nobody will have the last word, until all the reasons are being depleted.

 

 

YES to this. Here we sit among the wisdoms, ambiguities, and omens of the Tao. And there is an issue--obviously more than what is said in the exchange of words so far. What do you suppose Lao Tzu would advise, that we bury dissension beneath sight? I don't think so. This would seem to me an opportunity for the Tao in action.

[stan herman]

PS It seems incongruous and self-contradictory if we here become rigid and righteous about our pronouncements and dignity. This seems to me a place for learning and growth. Or as Lao Tzu today might say:

 

 

76. In life a body is soft and vulnerable, in death a body stiffens. it is the same for plants, the delicate and fragile grow, the rigid and brittle break or decay.

 

When people are permeable and flexible they thrive. When they stiffen they lose their vigor and resilience. When the planks of party platforms dry out they crack.

 

What is stiff and brittle fails. What is pliable and sensitive rises.

[Marblehead]

What do you suppose Lao Tzu would advise, that we bury dissension beneath sight? I don't think so. This would seem to me an opportunity for the Tao in action.

 

I'm sure he would use it as a vehicle for a new lesson.

[Marblehead]

PS It seems incongruous and self-contradictory if we here become rigid and righteous about our pronouncements and dignity. This seems to me a place for learning and growth. Or as Lao Tzu today might say:

 

76. In life a body is soft and vulnerable, in death a body stiffens. it is the same for plants, the delicate and fragile grow, the rigid and brittle break or decay.

 

When people are permeable and flexible they thrive. When they stiffen they lose their vigor and resilience. When the planks of party platforms dry out they crack.

 

What is stiff and brittle fails. What is pliable and sensitive rises.

 

Hi Stan,

 

You are right, of course.

 

But then you were quoting Lao Tzu so how could I disagree with you? Hehehe.

 

I talk about my own hard-headedness here sometimes but I really do try to remain flexible in thought and deed.

 

And I will agree that if we wish to have a meaningful discussion we must consider the other peoples' points and opinions in our responses.

[stan herman]

Hi Stan,

 

You are right, of course.

 

But then you were quoting Lao Tzu so how could I disagree with you? Hehehe.

 

I talk about my own hard-headedness here sometimes but I really do try to remain flexible in thought and deed.

 

And I will agree that if we wish to have a meaningful discussion we must consider the other peoples' points and opinions in our responses.

 

Marblehead, you are serving a purpose for at least two others. I admire that. At the same time I hope that as you serve, you serve yourself as well as others.

[Marblehead]

Marblehead, you are serving a purpose for at least two others. I admire that. At the same time I hope that as you serve, you serve yourself as well as others.

 

Hi Stan,

 

Thanks!

 

I value your input as well.

 

Ah! The subject of serving. What a challenging concept.

 

Yes, I hold to the understanding that I must first serve myself. Afterall, what help could I possibly offer others if I, myself, am destitute?

 

As I have spoken to before, in order to find 'peace & contentment' we must satisfy our basic needs. Once our needs and some of our wants are satisfied we can then share our excess with others. I try to do that in my life.

[lienshan]

Henricks' Guodian strips of the first three lines read:

 

1 Fame or your health -- which is more dear?

2 Your health or possessions -- which is worth more?

3 Gain or loss -- in which is there harm?

 

Of course, I don't read the Chinese so I have no way of knowing if he took liberties in the translation of the English word "or".

Henricks took liberties using "or" and did thus miss the Guodian chapter 44 pointe

 

A title with a body; which one is the intimateness?

A body with a treasure; which one is the overmuchness?

A gain with a loss; which one is the illness?

The love of considerably is surely an expense of greatness

and the store of greatly is surely a loss of overmuchness

and therefore is to know sufficient harmless knowledge

and to stop secures the ability to prolong the lineage.

 

 

"A title with a body" is synonymous with "the son of Heaven"

[Marblehead]

Henricks took liberties using "or" and did thus miss the Guodian chapter 44 pointe

 

A title with a body; which one is the intimateness?

A body with a treasure; which one is the overmuchness?

A gain with a loss; which one is the illness?

The love of considerably is surely an expense of greatness

and the store of greatly is surely a loss of overmuchness

and therefore is to know sufficient harmless knowledge

and to stop secures the ability to prolong the lineage.

 

 

"A title with a body" is synonymous with "the son of Heaven"

 

Ah, but your version does not support the word "which" because you have set nothing to compare one to the other.

 

I do truely feel the word "or" must be included in the first three lines.

[lienshan]

Ah, but your version does not support the word "which"

because you have set nothing to compare one to the other.

You are not asked to compare but to choose e.g. which one to name "the overmuchness"?

Either "a body" or "a treasure" from the term "a body with a treasure".

Is "a body" similar to "the overmuchness" or is "a treasure" similar to "the overmuchness"?

That'll say you are asked to choose between two possibilities three times.

[dawei]

You are not asked to compare but to choose e.g. which one to name "the overmuchness"?

Either "a body" or "a treasure" from the term "a body with a treasure".

Is "a body" similar to "the overmuchness" or is "a treasure" similar to "the overmuchness"?

That'll say you are asked to choose between two possibilities three times.

Your english does not support the idea of choosing. There is no comparison being made.

 

If you want the comparison, you'll have to use "or" or "and"; to say "with" merges them as one; ergo, no comparative choice.

 

 

Only other way around it would be:

The self; the body; which one is more dear

Edited September 1, 2011 by dawei

[lienshan]

If you want the comparison, you'll have to use "or" or "and";

to say "with" merges them as one; ergo, no comparative choice.

Thanks for your explanation.

The Guodian pictograph is:

and / with / together with / comrade / etc. etc.

 

"cooperation", a unit of two or more components, seen with my own eyes.

 

"or" doesn't express the connection expressed in the pictograph.

"and" is maybe okey in english but is a poor translation of the pictograph.

[dawei]

與 - and; with; together; to; for; give, grant

 

"And" seems sufficiently clear.

 

I bought some fruit, apples and oranges and bananas [all merged together as one 'thing' we call fruit]; which do you prefer?

 

Ok, if forced to try and keep the "togetherness" idea:

 

To borrow from English/Feng:

Fame or self: Which matters more?

Self or wealth: Which is more precious?

Gain or loss: Which is more painful?

 

Variation:

When Fame joins with the self; which matters more?

When Wealth joins with the self; which is more precious?

When Loss joins with gain; which is more painful?

Edited September 1, 2011 by dawei

[lienshan]

Ok, if forced to try and keep the "togetherness" idea:

 

Variation:

When Fame joins with the self; which matters more?

When Wealth joins with the self; which is more precious?

When Loss joins with gain; which is more painful?

The two words in bold are repeated in the fifth line of the Guodian version:

 

A title together with a body; which one is the intimateness?

A body together with a treasure; which one is the overmuchness?

A gain together with a loss; which one is the illness?

The love of considerably is surely an expense of greatness

and the store of greatly is surely a loss of overmuchness

 

One of the few differences from the Guodian version to the Received versions is

that the two words "overmuchness" and "greatly" in line 5 are reversed,

which changes the logical argumentation of the Guodian version to

a repetition of the fourth line in the Received version?

[dawei]

The two words in bold are repeated in the fifth line of the Guodian version:

 

A title together with a body; which one is the intimateness?

A body together with a treasure; which one is the overmuchness?

A gain together with a loss; which one is the illness?

The love of considerably is surely an expense of greatness

and the store of greatly is surely a loss of overmuchness

 

One of the few differences from the Guodian version to the Received versions is

that the two words "overmuchness" and "greatly" in line 5 are reversed,

which changes the logical argumentation of the Guodian version to

a repetition of the fourth line in the Received version?

The reversal of the two words [in the received version] breaks the parallel structure of 4 and 5. I would agree that 4 and 5 are not as well connected once the two words are reversed. (I don't see them as a repetition but broken parallel structure, or logical argument as you say).

 

IT is clear that the Guodian is to be preferred. Henrick's comments about the rhythm word order requires the Guodian order; and then it also makes better sense relative to staying parallel structure to line 4.

Edited September 1, 2011 by dawei

[lienshan]

Henrick's comments about the rhythm word order requires the Guodian order

I think that the reversed word has nothing to do with Henrick's 'rhythm',

but that line 5 contains the key to answer the line 2 and 3 questions:

 

A body together with a treasure; which one is the overmuchness?

A gain together with a loss; which one is the illness?

 

The Guodian version:

 

and the store of greatly is surely a loss of overmuchness.

 

One can store greatly as a treasure in a body, so a treasure must be the overmuchness!

 

The Received version:

 

and the store of overmuchness is surely a loss of greatly.

 

One cannot store overmuchness as a treasure in a body, so a body must be the overmuchness!

Edited September 2, 2011 by lienshan