Aaron Posted July 5, 2011 Chapter 47 John C. H. Wu Without going out of your door, You can know the ways of the world. Without peeping through your window, You can see the Way of Heaven. The farther you go, The less you know. Thus, the Sage knows without travelling, Sees vithout looking, And achieves without Ado. Gia-fu Feng and Jane English Without going outside, you may know the whole world. Without looking through the window, you may see the ways of heaven. The farther you go, the less you know. Thus the sage knows without traveling; He sees without looking; He works without doing. Robert G. Henricks 1. No need to leave your door to know the whole world; 2. No need to peer through your windows to know the Way of Heaven. 3. The farther you go, the less you know. 4. Therefore the Sage knows without going, 5. Names without seeing, 6. And completes without doing a thing. ---------------- Now what do you think about that? Hmm...? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted July 5, 2011 Now what do you think about that? Hmm...? Well, I think that shows that Aaron needs to work on his trait of impatience. Hehehe. You did good Aaron. At least from this I know you are still keeping up with the treads and the chapters. My general comment is that Lao Tzu is not necessarily suggesting that we just stay home and do nothing but rather telling us that if we observe our environment, no matter where we are, we will see the processes in nature (including man) and we can therefore be prepared for interaction with the rest of the universe no matter where we might go. This is the primary chapter from where I got my understanding that I speak to occassionally regarding 'observing the processes of nature'. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stan herman Posted July 5, 2011 Well, I think that shows that Aaron needs to work on his trait of impatience. Hehehe. You did good Aaron. At least from this I know you are still keeping up with the treads and the chapters. My general comment is that Lao Tzu is not necessarily suggesting that we just stay home and do nothing but rather telling us that if we observe our environment, no matter where we are, we will see the processes in nature (including man) and we can therefore be prepared for interaction with the rest of the universe no matter where we might go. This is the primary chapter from where I got my understanding that I speak to occassionally regarding 'observing the processes of nature'. My view is similar to this, said in a contemporary context: 47. It is not necessary to possess all the data to know your best course. Without exhaustive inspection of each and every factor, what feels right and good your spirit will announce. There are times when data are no use, when information distances, and learnedness obscures the heart of certainty. The keen-minded, without hurrying to meetings knows the crucial issues, without analysis recognizes the choices, without programs does what needs doing. The best of all action stems from the fact of being. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChiDragon Posted July 5, 2011 (edited) Robert G. Henricks 1. No need to leave your door to know the whole world; 2. No need to peer through your windows to know the Way of Heaven. 3. The farther you go, the less you know. 4. Therefore the Sage knows without going, 5. Names without seeing, <------------- He lost me here...??? 6. And completes without doing a thing. Edited July 5, 2011 by ChiDragon Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChiDragon Posted July 5, 2011 Chapter 47 1. Without stepping out the door, knowing the principles of the world. 2. Without looking out the window, seeing the principles of Nature. 3. One travels farther, 4. One comprehends less. 5. Therefore, a sage, 6. Without traveling but foresees. 7. Without peeking but understands. 8. Without hasten but accomplishes. Chapter 47 of Wang Bi 1. 不出戶知天下。 2. 不闚牖見天道。 3. 其出彌遠, 4. 其知彌少。 5. 是以聖人 6. 不行而知。 7. 不見而明。 8. 不為而成。 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dawei Posted July 5, 2011 (edited) Robert G. Henricks 1. No need to leave your door to know the whole world; 2. No need to peer through your windows to know the Way of Heaven. 3. The farther you go, the less you know. 4. Therefore the Sage knows without going, 5. Names without seeing, <------------- He lost me here...??? 6. And completes without doing a thing. Yes, his 'terse translation' is not obvious in meaning Think of it like the Sage; he can: 4. Know something without going 'anywhere' (he does not need to go to know) 5. Name something without having to see 'anything' (he does not need to see to give a name) 6. Completes something without doing 'anything' (he does not need to forcefully do to complete) 5. 不見而名 bu jian er ming Some appear to exchange 名 (ming-Name) with 明 (ming-Understand) 5. Understands without seeing - Lin Yutang ; also Chan I think the way to understand 4 and 5 is that they are an explanation of 1 and 2: 1 & 4: you can 'know' something without leaving the door 2 & 5: you can 'see' something without looking out the window The problem with Hendricks translation is that the Mawangdui does NOT have 'see' in line 2 like the Wang Bi. In the Wang Bi, 'know' and 'see' are repeated to these explanatory lines (1&4 have 'know'; 2&5 have 'see'). In the Mawangdui, 'know' is used in lines 1 and 2. That may be another reason why some feel justified to use "understand" (ie: to know) in line 5. Edited July 5, 2011 by dawei Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dawei Posted July 5, 2011 I see that line 5 has variations as follows: MWD-A; 5. □□□□ MWD-B 5. □□而名 Fu Yi: 5. 不見而名 Heshang Gong: 5. 不見而名 Wang Bi 1: 5. 不見而名 (Wang Bi's commentary confirms he used this) Wang Bi 2: (unknown source altering the Wang Bi) 5. 不見而明 It is clear from the Wang Bi commentary that 不見而名 is what he worked with. He comments: "He understands the principle of entities; this is why even 'without looking at [them],' it is possible for him to give the [correct] 'name' to the ordering principle of right and wrong". --- I am not sure if people tire of pointing out the textual issues. But I think we need to stick to the common text the three translators stick to; and if we deviate from that to show it and explain it. Otherwise, everyone is mislead to believe the alterations are what was used. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChiDragon Posted July 5, 2011 I am not sure if people tire of pointing out the textual issues. But I think we need to stick to the common text the three translators stick to; and if we deviate from that to show it and explain it. Otherwise, everyone is mislead to believe the alterations are what was used. My problem with working with translations, there are too many unknown hidden factors which can be misled by the translators. We don't know what version they were using, and how familiar with the historical and cultural background of the original language. Sometimes, some of the translators were making lots of erroneous assumptions by using thinking from their own cultural background. In addition, they tend to use the only available sources in their language. Some of the information that they are using may be misinformed or misleading due the mistranslation and some missing pieces. My question is what could be more accurate than the original source...??? BTW... My native source indicated that both characters 名(ming2)and 明(ming2) were interchangeable in classic text. That is more acceptable then just taken it for granted. 1. 不見而明(Without peeking but understands)。 2. 不見而名(Names without seeing)。 IMO Line 1 seems to me is more logical and makes more sense. Besides, I don't think this was the case to blame on the terse English. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dawei Posted July 5, 2011 (edited) My problem with working with translations, there are too many unknown hidden factors which can be misled by the translators. We don't know what version they were using, and how familiar with the historical and cultural background of the original language. Sometimes, some of the translators were making lots of erroneous assumptions by using thinking from their own cultural background. In addition, they tend to use the only available sources in their language. Some of the information that they are using may be misinformed or misleading due the mistranslation and some missing pieces. I agree. My question is what could be more accurate than the original source...??? ALL versions have 不見而名. Wang Bi comments in his day and says 名 to explain 名. So we know exactly what his source was; the exact same as all previous manuscripts. BTW...My native source indicated that both characters 名(ming2)and 明(ming2) were interchangeable in classic text. That is more acceptable then just taken it for granted. Yes, I know this. But you choose not to reveal the changes to the text you choose to follow. If you deviate from the normal text, you should take the time to explain it. IMO, this is a 'study' after all; so why not enlighten us upfront to your reasons for not following the normal text or why you use the alterations. 1. 不見而明(Without peeking but understands)。 2. 不見而名(Names without seeing)。 IMO Line 1 seems to me is more logical and makes more sense. Besides, I don't think this was the case to blame on the terse English. The first reads a little awkward in english to me. In general, you should consider a word or two more so it reads as better english. The "Without... but.." does not really read well. The second reads ok but is maybe not completely clear. IMO, The more logical translation of Ming (明) would be: "Sees without looking" - That is what line 2 is saying and it is an explanation of that line, IMO. or if Ming (名) is used, then it should be "describes" or "distinguishes". see my next post where I sort out the variations I see: Edited July 5, 2011 by dawei Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
3deedit Posted July 5, 2011 My view is similar to this, said in a contemporary context: 47. It is not necessary to possess all the data to know your best course. Without exhaustive inspection of each and every factor, what feels right and good your spirit will announce. There are times when data are no use, when information distances, and learnedness obscures the heart of certainty. The keen-minded, without hurrying to meetings knows the crucial issues, without analysis recognizes the choices, without programs does what needs doing. The best of all action stems from the fact of being. how to get info without looking through your windows?chapter 47 and 4 yijing Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dawei Posted July 5, 2011 (edited) Here is what I see as the logical connection between the opening lines and the later lines: (I am not translating the lines, just giving the short meaning which should tie together) Fu Yi: (First complete text; adheres to Mawangdui) 1. 不出戸可以知天下 - Without going can Know 2. 不窺牅可以知天道 - Without looking can Know 4. 不行而知 - Knows without Going 5. 不見而名 - Names without Seeing IMO, it does not seem in sync. If 'describes' or 'distinguishes' were used instead of the literal 'Names', then I can agree with this Wang Bi: (Actually this is the Heshang Gong since Wang Bi follows his change) 1. 不出戶知天下。 - Without going can Know 2. 不闚牖見天道。 - Without looking can See (follows Heshang Gong) 4. 不行而知。 - Know without Going 5. 不見而名。- Names without Seeing IMO, it does not sync up yet, If 'describes' or 'distinguishes' were used instead of the literal 'Names', then I can agree with this Variations: "Understands without seeing" 1. 不出戸可以知天下 - Without Going can Know 2. 不窺牅可以見天道 - Without Looking can See (follows Heshang Gong) 4. 不行而知 - Know without Going 5. 不見而明 - Understand without Seeing (classical language exchange) IMO, it does not sync up yet. Wrong translation of Ming. Variations: "Sees without looking" 1. 不出戸可以知天下 - Without Going can Know 2. 不窺牅可以見天道 - Without Looking can See (follows Heshang Gong) 4. 不行而知 - Know without Going 5. 不見而明 - See without Looking (classical language exchange) IMO, this is the more logical of the exchange of 明 since the lines are now in sync in meaning. Edited July 5, 2011 by dawei Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted July 5, 2011 To Chapter 47 in general - I wonder if lines 4-6 were not later additions to the original. Perhaps an attempt to clarify what someone thought was insufficient in the first three lines? Lines 4-6 do not directly support lines 1-3 as the word "therefore" would dictate. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dawei Posted July 5, 2011 I see the "therefore" saying they directly support and explain 1-3. But the two oldest manuscripts are missing chunks as shown below in Red: MWD-A, missing in RED: (showing the equivalent Wang Bi below using Feng/English) 1. 不出戶知天下。- Without going outside, you may know the whole world. 2. 不闚牖見天道。- Without looking through the window, you may see the ways of heaven. 3. 其出彌遠,The farther you go, 其知彌少。- the less you know. 4. 是以聖人不行而知。- Thus the sage knows without traveling; 5. 不見而名[明]。- He sees without looking; 6. 不為而 - He works without 成 - doing.。 MWD-B, missing in RED: 1. 不出戶知天下。 2. 不闚牖見天道。 3. 其出彌遠,其知彌少。 4. 是以聖人不行而知。 5. 不見而名[明]。 6. 不為而成。 Probably missing due to damage rather than not having been written, otherwise it was just: 1,2,3,6(?) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted July 5, 2011 I see the "therefore" saying they directly support and explain 1-3. But the two oldest manuscripts are missing chunks as shown below in Red: Probably missing due to damage rather than not having been written, otherwise it was just: 1,2,3,6(?) Yes, Henricks noted the missing, and therefore the assumed, characters of this chapter. Too bad there wasn't anything in the Guodian strips for this chapter. But, I never did like "Names without seeing," because, afterall, when we name a thing we are putting our limits on that thing and I think that this is something a Sage would not do. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChiDragon Posted July 5, 2011 (edited) Wang Bi 1: (Classic version) 5. 不見而名 (Wang Bi's commentary confirms he used this) Wang Bi 2: (unknown source altering the Wang Bi) Received Version 5. 不見而明(Without looking but understands)<---- exact direct translation. It sounds awkward. Yes, that's exactly how awkward it sounds in the Classic Chinese; and to a modern Chinese too. Why can't we make the English sound exactly like the Classic Text...??? So nothing gets lost in the translations. Line 5 was meant to say "Understood without looking." The character 明(ming2) means "to understand" in Modern Chinese. Any modern native would know what that means right away. In the other hand, 名(ming2) it's really meaningless within context without further explanation. PS... As I indicated before, I am working with a Received Version which used Wang Bi as basis. All the characters were corrected by logical interpretation within context. It seems to me it would be more feasible to work with to convey the thoughts of the TTC instead of jumping back and forth over the different versions. Indeed, that will save lots of time and explaining. Edited July 5, 2011 by ChiDragon Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChiDragon Posted July 5, 2011 (edited) Yes, Henricks noted the missing, and therefore the assumed, characters of this chapter. Too bad there wasn't anything in the Guodian strips for this chapter. But, I never did like "Names without seeing," because, afterall, when we name a thing we are putting our limits on that thing and I think that this is something a Sage would not do. Yes, I couldn't agree more on your last thought. It seems Henricks didn't know the Characters 名(ming1) and 明(ming2) were interchangeable in the ancient time. Otherwise, he would have had translated differently. BTW I've just found that out myself from my source, today, since dawei had brought this up to my attention. Edited July 5, 2011 by ChiDragon Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dawei Posted July 6, 2011 (edited) Why can't we make the English sound exactly like the Classic Text...??? So nothing gets lost in the translations. Sometimes it sounds like gibberish and without meaning. If that's what you want, go for it but most readers do not prefer that. It seems to me it would be more feasible to work with to convey the thoughts of the TTC instead of jumping back and forth over the different versions. Indeed, that will save lots of time and explaining. From the beginning we picked two translators using the Wang Bi and Hendricks since he uses the MWD. Considering that sometimes translators will use an older manuscript meaning in the Wang Bi, it takes an understanding to see how they arrived at their translation. Now you want to add into that mix a Received version that most never knew exist and they don't find their favorite translators using. So there is some impact to that now additional text and understanding yet another variation. It seems Henricks didn't know the Characters 名(ming1) and 明(ming2) were interchangeable in the ancient time. Otherwise, he would have had translated differently. You assume that because he choose to use "Names"? What other facts do you have to support that? I will tell you why I think he most likely knows this but choose to stick to 名(ming1): 1. Wing-Tsit Chan's DDJ translation is quite well known and often quoted by many other translators, as well as his notes. 2. His famous publication was printed in 1966, "A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy". 3. Hendricks published his translation in 1989. 4. Hendricks almost exclusive references, quotes, and notes Chan's translation throughout his. 5. Chan discusses the interchangeability of 名(ming1) and 明(ming2). In my mind, it is highly improbably that the only translator of the Guodian and Mawangdui did not know this issue. I am not saying he is right or wrong; I am only saying it seems more likely he knew and simply choose to translate it as he saw it. If one has seen his Guodian translation, he is incredibly detailed in describing the nuances of the classical text in terms of meaning, loans, sounds, rhythm, etc. Edited July 6, 2011 by dawei Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Aaron Posted July 7, 2011 To get back to meaning, I think this is definitely talking about introspection. How else can one know without traveling, see without looking, and work without doing? As an aside this was, at one time, one of my favorite chapters. Aaron Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dawei Posted July 7, 2011 I think this is definitely talking about introspection. How else can one know without traveling, see without looking, and work without doing? Intuition is closer, IMO. No thinking or looking into the self is needed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted July 7, 2011 Never-the-less, I think that the first three lines hold a very important concept of Taoist philosophy. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChiDragon Posted July 7, 2011 1. You assume that because he choose to use "Names"? What other facts do you have to support that? 2. In my mind, it is highly improbably that the only translator of the Guodian and Mawangdui did not know this issue. I am not saying he is right or wrong; I am only saying it seems more likely he knew and simply choose to translate it as he saw it. If one has seen his Guodian translation, he is incredibly detailed in describing the nuances of the classical text in terms of meaning, loans, sounds, rhythm, etc. 1. Based on common sense. In Chinese, the Characters 名(ming2) and 明(ming2) were interchangeable in the ancient time. However, "name" and "understanding" are not interchangeable in English. IMO It would be a very poor translation if 明(ming2) was translated as "names". 2. If 明(ming2) was used, in the first place, for both Chinese and English, then the incredibly detailed in describing the nuances of the classical text could have been avoided and have less confusion. Hence, that was why a Received Version was introduced to eliminate all the unnecessary confusions. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dawei Posted July 7, 2011 1. Based on common sense. In Chinese, the Characters 名(ming2) and 明(ming2) were interchangeable in the ancient time. However, "name" and "understanding" are not interchangeable in English. IMO It would be a very poor translation if 明(ming2) was translated as "names". 2. If 明(ming2) was used, in the first place, for both Chinese and English, then the incredibly detailed in describing the nuances of the classical text could have been avoided and have less confusion. Hence, that was why a Received Version was introduced to eliminate all the unnecessary confusions. Well, your ignoring an answer to your original assertion and what I asked in return. You stated "Hendricks didn't know" they were interchangeable. That would be semi-absurd to state, IMO. Your just twisting out an answer to plug your received version. We get it. You use the received version since it clears up 2500 years of mistakes the rest of us are following. There are translators (yes plural) using "Names". Whatever. It's their translation. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChiDragon Posted July 7, 2011 Never-the-less, I think that the first three lines hold a very important concept of Taoist philosophy. Yes, it is. I would like to hear from you how would you interpret these three paradoxes based on your understanding of LaoTze's philosophy...? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted July 8, 2011 Yes, it is. I would like to hear from you how would you interpret these three paradoxes based on your understanding of LaoTze's philosophy...? Okay. Let's take a look. (I will use Henricks' translation. Hehehe.) 1. No need to leave your door to know the whole world; 2. No need to peer through your windows to know the Way of Heaven. 3. The farther you go, the less you know. Line 1.) If I fully understand myself, fully understand the processes in nature, and fully understand that these processes apply to every living thing all I need do is look at myself and I can know the entire world (at least the processes that govern the life of all things). Line 2.) If I am able to clear my mind of all ego-based thoughts I will see the "real" "me". Just another life form trying to survive. But over time "I" change - from birth to death and all the experiences between the two. The Way of Heaven (the universe) is like this: birth followed by death with experiences between the two. Line 3.) I will use the example of a car. If a car is in good working condition it can be used to move from one point in space (my home) (on a road preferrably) to a different point in space. Before we moved from point "A" to point "B" we knew where we were. Now we are in a different place. I doubt that I would know as much about this new place as I did about my own home. (But, if we return to lines 1. and 2. we can immediately know.) Again, the car. All parts functional. we have a means of transportation. So we want to know what makes the car a car. First we take off the wheels. We no longer have a complete car. The more we disassemble the car the less we know that it is a means of transportation. Regarding my personal being, if I try to eliminate my ego I would no longer have my complete self. This would be true of any other personal, natural trait that makes me what I am. If, at any point in time, I think that I understand myself and then try to eliminate any of my personal traits I would no longer understand some of the things I do because I would be pretending that the trait governing my actions didn't exist. That's the best I can do at the moment. I could speak more if I were asked specific questions. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChiDragon Posted July 8, 2011 Okay. Let's take a look. (I will use Henricks' translation. Hehehe.) 1. No need to leave your door to know the whole world; 2. No need to peer through your windows to know the Way of Heaven. 3. The farther you go, the less you know. We can learn a lot from this chapter. First is LaoTze's writing style; and, secondly, is the way he present his philosophy with metaphors. There are three levels of interpretation for the Tao Te Ching. First is the superficial meaning of the phrases, second is the interpretation, and third is the hidden message in the metaphor. However, if the first and second levels are illogical or make no sense at all, then go to the third level. In this chapter, the first three lines are written in metaphors. Line 1 was suggesting that one shall not rely on what it seems to be or superficial, the truth is always there in the world. One must use one's own intuition and impartial judgment to find out the truth. Line 2 was suggesting that one does not need to look outside to determine the Laws of Nature. It is because the Laws of Nature are always the same which do not change. Line 3 was suggesting that the more one sees, the more confusions that are deceiving one's principled thoughts. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites