[TTC Study] Chapter 51 of the Tao Teh Ching

[Marblehead]

Raise it but not controlling it, isn't wu wei

No it's not but it is still a nice thing to do.

[ChiDragon]

There was a question about 玄德 some place in the forum.
10.道生之，
11.德畜之。
12.長之育之。
13.亭之毒之。
14.養之覆之。
15.生而不有，
16.為而不恃，
17.長而不宰。
18.是謂玄德。

10.Tao engenders it,
11.Te rears it.
12.Grow it and nourish it,
13.Let it grow to maturity,
14.To foster it and protect it.
15.Produce it but not possessing it.
16. Flourishing it but not being vainglorious.
17.Raise it but not controlling it,
18.It was called the abyssal virtue(玄德).


To my understanding, one may take it as an opinion, 玄德 in line 18 is the same 德 in line 11. From lines 12 thru 17 are the finest quality of Tao. These qualities were referred as the virtue of Tao. The virtue of Tao was even embellished as 玄德. 玄德 means the deepest or divine virtue of Tao.

Edited October 29, 2013 by ChiDragon

[dawei]

There was a question about 玄德 some place in the forum.

 

I know that H.E. made a certain position about De... and you got confused, and you had some question about following his point.

 

But, from what I see, your making the same point he did. I don't really see where you differ from what he was saying, except he used that argument to THEN say De came before Dao; De being deep and divine, as you say here.

 

I agree with what your saying above. I know that some, including myself at times, does not like the use of "divine" but your usage here is clear that you are not referring to human virtue. So I think this phrase is good.

 

I recently ran across a translation from Taiwan translation into English and they choose to use "Divine Law" for Dao.

[ChiDragon]

Thank for your clear understanding. "Deep and divine" are only adjectives to modify De. Even though we say "divine" but it still doesn't make De before Tao because the "Divine De" is only a description for the virtue of Tao. Thus the De in "Divine De" is not at the same level nor in the same category as Tao.

The mentioned tile on the other thread was not very distinctive, by first glance, to know it is the "Divine De" rather than the human De.

Edited October 29, 2013 by ChiDragon

[Marblehead]

Interesting too that Henricks does not even make a distinction here regarding Tao and Te. His section of this chapter starts out with, "The Way gives birth to them, nourishes them ..."

 

But I will still suggest that Tao is the creating force and Te is the sustaining force.

 

I generally ignore the word "Divine". Hehehe.

[ChiDragon]

Interesting too that Henricks does not even make a distinction here regarding Tao and Te. His section of this chapter starts out with, "The Way gives birth to them, nourishes them ..."

 

But I will still suggest that Tao is the creating force and Te is the sustaining force.

 

I generally ignore the word "Divine". Hehehe.

Lines 10 and 11, in the original classic, had specified both Tao and Te to establish the the distinction of the two. Otherwise, the classic wouldn't be called the Tao Te Ching.

 

10.道(Tao) 生之:(Tao engenders it),

11.德(Te ) 畜之:(Te rears it).

 

 

MH: "But I will still suggest that Tao is the creating force and Te is the sustaining force."

I agree with you 99.99% on this one.

Edited October 29, 2013 by ChiDragon

[dawei]

Thank for your clear understanding. "Deep and divine" are only adjectives to modify De. Even though we say "divine" but it still doesn't make De before Tao because the "Divine De" is only a description for the virtue of Tao. Thus the De in "Divine De" is not at the same level nor in the same category as Tao.

 

The mentioned tile on the other thread was not very distinctive, by first glance, to know it is the "Divine De" rather than the human De.

 

I think we basically agree.

 

To be fair to H.E. (or any member), the initial title may not always be able to convey exactly what will unfold in the thread. That kind of thread is bound to evolve and help the OP develop the first idea they have into something more substantial (or maybe not). I was willing to participate in his journey.

[Marblehead]

So you disagree and agree. That's good.

 

I sure would like to see another translation to English of the Ma-wang-tui original other than just Henricks so I had something to compare it against.

[dawei]

So you disagree and agree. That's good.

 

I sure would like to see another translation to English of the Ma-wang-tui original other than just Henricks so I had something to compare it against.

 

I know there are others... I may have one or two. realize they all really do the same thing... they start with the MWD but where they agree with changes (to the Guodian or later text) they sometimes feel compelled to deviate and explain why. If I find something I'll PM you as I would need an email to send you anything I find...

[Marblehead]

That would be greatly appreciated.

 

Perhaps including the Guodian with the Ma-wang-tui might be an error?