[TTC Study] Chapter 1 of the Tao Te Ching

[Harmonious Emptiness]

The character 名 ming is both a noun (a name) and a verb (to name).

Modern english has eigth parts of speech while pre-Qin classical chinese had only two:

nouns (names) and not nouns (not names) = you ming 有名 and wu ming 無名

 

A noun / name is for example "the mother of everything"

 

A not noun / not name is for example "in the beginning of everything"

 

The character 始 shi was in pre-Qin classical chinese a verb: to begin

It became a time-term when followed by a 也 ye as in the Mawangdui version.

I've choosen to use the biblic term "in the beginning" to express the not noun time aspect.

 

The main pointe of the Mawangdui chapter 1 version is, that tao is neither creating nor the creator.

That'll say neither a not noun nor a noun.

That'll say the statement of the first line is false and Laozi is by logic quoting somebody else

MWD: 無名萬物之始也, 有名萬物之母也

 

I think this still comes down to "the beginning of all things was limitless; the mother of all things can be percieved."

 

As I had before:

 

無名天地之始

One cannot conceptualize where Heaven and Earth came from (as they did not come from a concept.)

"Without name: the origin of Heaven and Earth"

 

有名萬物之母。

There can, however, be a concept of where the myriad children of Heaven and Earth came from (: they came from the concept(s) of Heaven and Earth).

"Existing: the name of the mother of the myriad things"

 

 

These concepts are considered further in later concepts, but I think the sum total of Chapter One is almost like a translators introduction: "to understand this, keep in mind...."

 

Maybe consider this:

道可, 道非, 恆道

名可, 名非, 恆名

I guess would say "Dao can be (Dao is), Dao not (Dao is not), eternal way (all is Dao)." Interesting possibility. The rhythm is important to catch the rest of the punctuation, imo. At least the meaning here would stay the same though, as "the Dao is beyond codification."

[lienshan]

'scuse my wikipedia reliance here, but Shen Dao and Shen Buhai both show up later than the Guodian manuscripts, no?

 

The teacher in the Guodian grave was burried 312 BC together with his own private library which was custom at that time. His library came into existence thus: He dictated various philosophical books from the royal library in Ying, the capitol of Chu, and his pupils brushed what he read aloud on bamboo slips training how to write. The teacher kept the bamboo slips. These had no value seen with the eyes of the children, but had great value seen with the eyes of a poor teacher interested in philosophy.

He didn't read aloud from the Tao Te Ching but from Laozi's manuscript to Tao Te Ching! Some chapters were finished and others were under construction. The manuscript can be dated as written around the middle of the 4th century BC, when the character 亡 was replaced by the character 無 in philosophical writings, according to Pulleyblank, which makes Laozi a contemporary to both Shen Buhai and Shen Dao.

[lienshan]

MWD: 無名萬物之始也, 有名萬物之母也

 

I think this still comes down to "the beginning of all things was limitless; the mother of all things can be percieved."

 

That's okey with me; we don't have to agree

 

What interests me at the moment is how to read the line 1 and 2 terms 恆道 and 恆名

 

always the tao / always the name or the eternal tao / the eternal name

 

Both ways of reading are legal seen from a grammatical point of view; maybe that's the pointe?

[dawei]

'scuse my wikipedia reliance here, but Shen Dao and Shen Buhai both show up later than the Guodian manuscripts, no?

 

This is one of those times I would say don't believe everything wiki says...

[dawei]

That's okey with me; we don't have to agree

 

What interests me at the moment is how to read the line 1 and 2 terms 恆道 and 恆名

 

always the tao / always the name or the eternal tao / the eternal name

 

Both ways of reading are legal seen from a grammatical point of view; maybe that's the pointe?

 

I have always questioned the idea of "constant", "eternal", "always" here... but I am going to write something on Heng soon. It carried the original meaning of Tai Ji (but instead of polarity it was more like a stabilizing center. There is also evidence that Heng was a Shamanistic ritual of some sort.

[lienshan]

The meaning of 恆 heng (and 常 chang) is constant/constantly; in different nuances. The problem is not how to translate the character, but to identify whether it's an adjective (constant) or an adverb (constantly)?

It depends probably on the following character. If that's a "wu ming 無名" character then heng is an adverb, and if that's a "you ming 有名" character then heng is an adjective. But what part of speech is 道 tao?

 

Modern english has eigth parts of speech while pre-Qin classical chinese had only two:

nouns (names) and not nouns (not names) = you ming 有名 and wu ming 無名

 

A noun / name is for example "the mother of everything"

 

A not noun / not name is for example "in the beginning of everything"

Edited April 8, 2013 by lienshan

[dawei]

The meaning of 恆 heng (and 常 chang) is constant/constantly; in different nuances. The problem is not how to translate the character, but to identify whether it's an adjective (constant) or an adverb (constantly)?

It depends probably on the following character. If that's a "wu ming 無名" character then heng is an adverb, and if that's a "you ming 有名" character then heng is an adjective. But what part of speech is 道 tao?

Your just using the common definition of Chang without regards to what I am saying about Heng. I offered for you to take another look at the ancient meanings but if you want to ignore that, that is ok by me.

[Harmonious Emptiness]

The use of 自 in Shen Buhai is important. Later we see it in Laozi very similarly and as 自然. Also, 自名 was originally in Ch. 42 but was replaced by 為稱. The relationship of 自 and 為 is one to note too.

 

This was interesting. I guess it works together sort of like:

自然 zi ran/nature/self-correcting and self-permitting

自名 self-naming

為稱 putting in balance

 

How did you see the use of zi and ming?

[lienshan]

Your just using the common definition of Chang without regards to what I am saying about Heng.

 

In the beginning of everything isn't a name.

The mother of everything is a name.

As a consequence:

It is changelessly desireless with regard to its virtue.

She is a changeless desirer with regard to her offsprings.

 

恆無欲 explained: 無欲 isn't a name (a noun) which marks 恆 as an adverb: changelessly

恆有欲 explained: 有欲 is a name (a noun) which marks 恆 as an adjective: changeless

 

恆 heng is the name of the I Ching hexagram 32 and the ancient meaning of the character is wellknown.

Persevering and Duration are the most common translations into english.

My pick Changeless fits into the context here.

[dawei]

In the beginning of everything isn't a name.

The mother of everything is a name.

As a consequence:

It is changelessly desireless with regard to its virtue.

She is a changeless desirer with regard to her offsprings.

 

恆無欲 explained: 無欲 isn't a name (a noun) which marks 恆 as an adverb: changelessly

恆有欲 explained: 有欲 is a name (a noun) which marks 恆 as an adjective: changeless

 

恆 heng is the name of the I Ching hexagram 32 and the ancient meaning of the character is wellknown.

Persevering and Duration are the most common translations into english.

My pick Changeless fits into the context here.

 

Looking at the Yijing is only a small part of its meaning. One has to keep going on... but I don't have time for that. I will only offer that Heng is anciently synonymous with Ji (think TaiJi or WuJi) and Dao and The Great One. It seems that each ancient text offers a slightly different view and angle to the use and meaning of all these primordial generative effects on the myriad things.

 

So far, I am close to feeling that there are times when Heng means the "inner essence" (or truest essence) of what it is talking about. At other times, it is similar to De as an inner power and clearly as a replacement for Dao (if not higher).

 

You should look for the Text called "HengXian" (恒先). It is a Mawangdui text dated to the Guodian Tai Yi Sheng Shui and is the most complete cosmology; these two texts have more in common than with the short cosmology of the Laozi; And I think this is the missing link to understanding the DDJ1.

 

I find in this text some support for what you are saying but I'll just share some parts:

 

Hengxian states:

“If the Field is not a Field, there is no name of Field.” A is A, and A must not be non-A.

This mainly explains the relationship between name and reality, between idea and actuality; it emphasizes that the existence and activity of all things totally depend on their own natures.

"Everything is from the same origin but they are different from each other because of their own desires." -- Wang

There is a reason that Heng has two lines in its character: to connect Heaven and Earth... and that is a hint as to why Ji has been a replacement for it in ancient text; Ji is a Man standing between two lines... the two characters almost convey the same idea in the ancient script. At one time, both had a divination part to the character too.

The cosmologies show the production and arising and the self-transformation, etc... Does this convey 'changeless' ?

IMO, there is a deep cosmology meaning and use behind the original meaning of Heng.

Edited April 9, 2013 by dawei

[dawei]

This was interesting. I guess it works together sort of like:

自然 zi ran/nature/self-correcting and self-permitting

自名 self-naming

為稱 putting in balance

 

How did you see the use of zi and ming?

 

Speaking of the HengXian further... The idea of self-arising and self-transformation is central; called self-sufficiency from the primordial nothingness... called HengXian. In The Four Canons of The Yellow Emperor chapter called "Origin of Dao" (道原) it is called “hengwu ( 恒无)".

 

From the HengXian:

Yi creates yi; wei creates wei; fei creates fei; ai creates ai. All things have an inclination to reproduce themselves and reproduction is the way of creating them.

 

 

The Dao of Heaven (Heaven and Earth) has already been formed, but the One is still the One and the reversion is still reverting. The production of permanent Qi comes from the reversion unto its own desire. Only this reverting process forever exists among all operations of Heaven. If we can understand this principle, our thoughts will not be a breach of Heaven. Being proceeds from the Field. Life proceeds from Being. Sound proceeds from the life. Speech proceeds from sound. Names proceed from speech. Events proceed from names. If the Field is not Field,there is no name of Field. If the Being is not Being, there is no name of Being.If life is not life, there is no name of life. If the sound is not sound, there is no name of sound. If the speech is not speech, there is no name of speech. If the name is not a name, there is no name of naming. If the event is not an event,there is no name of event. - Wang

[lienshan]

 

Hengxian states:

“If the Field is not a Field, there is no name of Field.”

 

I've changed the two first lines into propositional statements.

恆 in line 2 must be the adjective changeless because 名 is read as the noun: a name

恆 in line 1 must be the adverb changelessly because a name itself isn't a noun.

 

Is it a tao or to tao and not changelessly tao?

Is it a noun or a verb and not a changeless name?

In the beginning of everything isn't a noun.

The mother of everything is a noun.

As a consequence:

It is changelessly desireless with regard to its virtue.

She is a changeless desirer with regard to her offsprings.

They are a pair of the same genesis.

They are different parts of speech having the same meaning.

Darkening dark and The gate of the numerous virtuous.

Edited April 9, 2013 by lienshan

[lienshan]

As to quoting somebody else... You don't say...

 

I think you would enjoy researching the writings of Shen Zi: Shen Dao and Shen Buhai.

I find that Laozi is borrow or re-organizing the thought of Shenzi in many places..

 

I think that Laozi dealt with the School of Names here in chapter 1

 

The founder Deng Xi invented the argumentation of the two possibilities liang ke zhi shuo 兩可之說

 

A man had stolen the corpse of a another persons's father and claimed a ransom.

Deng Xi, as a judge, appeased the robber that the son of the dead would not buy back another body,

and eased the son of the dead that nobody else would buy the corpse.

 

The School of Names divided later on into two directions:

 

The first direction was represented by Hui Shi. He found out that everything on earth is composed of two related opposites that on the one hand contradict each other but on the other hand belong together. The common ground of all things is much stronger than its differences. This direction is what Laozi nicknamed The mother of everything.

 

The second direction was represented by Gongsun Long. He found out that designations and real objects have actually nothing to do with each other but are only connected in a process of common concepts of thinking and only within this framework. This direction is what Laozi nicknamed In the beginning of everything.

[dawei]

“Mozi and his followers introduced the term chang as a constant standard of dao in order to solve the problems of “ right “ (shi 是) and “ wrong “ (fei 非), “beneficial” (li 利) and “ harm “ (hai 害), “ admissible “ (ke可) and “ inadmissible” (bu ke 不可). It is thus interpreted and translated as “constancy. ” “

 

 

Heng and Temporality of Dao http://www.cnphenomenology.com/modules/article/view.article.php/c7/711

[dawei]

Changlessness aside...

 

 

In the beginning of everything isn't a noun.

The mother of everything is a noun.

 

Just a thought: I'm not a big fan of "Beginning" as it doesn't sit well with me to imply the Wu-State; it sounds like the beginning unfolding or movement. But it is clear from all ancient texts that this is a state of nothingness. What the HengXian calls

wuxian 物先 (the state before the myriad things). It is clear that this rather synonymous with HengXian due to cosmology sequence.

 

I think the metaphor is: 始 may want to convey as womb (prior to birth- nothing comes forth) with 母 (as the producer of life-coming forth).

[lienshan]

What the HengXian calls wuxian 物先 (the state before the myriad things).

 

You have convinced me. This HengXian passage is what Laozi's in the beginning of everything referred to:

 

先有中，焉有外。先有小，焉有大。

先有柔，焉有剛。先有圓，焉有方。

先有晦，焉有明。先有短，焉有長。

 

The center exists first, then so does the outer; the small exists first, then so does the big;

the soft exist first, then so does the solid; the round exists first, then so does the square;

the dark exists first, then so does the bright; the short exist first, then so does the long.

 

And 先有晦，焉有明。the dark exists first, then so does the bright; is what his darkening dark referred to.

[ChiDragon]

Which one is first........???

[lienshan]

Which one is first........???

 

Is it possible that 恆名 could mean "a proper name" in pre-Qin classical chinese?

 

The modern term is 专有名词 according to the MDGB dictionary.

[ChiDragon]

Is it possible that 恆名 could mean "a proper name" in pre-Qin classical chinese?

 

The modern term is 专有名词 according to the MDGB dictionary.

 

It could be a proper name; but most lightly not in this case. Your MDGB dictionary is in err.....

[ChiDragon]

Which one is first........???

The center exists first, then so does the outer;

 

What your translation was actually saying:

The center exists first, then so does the outer(exists first) ;

 

[lienshan]

 

It could be a proper name; but most lightly not in this case. Your MDGB dictionary is in err.....

 

I think the modern term is 专名 meaning "a proper name"

 

Are you sure? Could 恆名 be translated "a proper name"

[ChiDragon]

专名 means a dedicated name.

Are you sure? Could 恆名 be translated "a proper name"

I said it can be a proper name but not translated as proper name.

[dawei]

You have convinced me. This HengXian passage is what Laozi's in the beginning of everything referred to:

 

先有中，焉有外。先有小，焉有大。

先有柔，焉有剛。先有圓，焉有方。

先有晦，焉有明。先有短，焉有長。

 

The center exists first, then so does the outer; the small exists first, then so does the big;

the soft exist first, then so does the solid; the round exists first, then so does the square;

the dark exists first, then so does the bright; the short exist first, then so does the long.

 

And 先有晦，焉有明。the dark exists first, then so does the bright; is what his darkening dark referred to.

 

I don't really disagree with your point here. It is clear that that the 'beginning' was the center and dark.

 

As to a proper name for Heng Ming; then one would have to ask if Heng Dao, Heng Wu, and Heng You were all proper names... or maybe just Heng is a proper name... described by the rest. I am not completely ready to go there but it is clear that the normal translations are otherwise less clear.

[lienshan]

欲Are you sure? Could 恆名 be translated "a proper name"

 

I said it can be a proper name but not translated as proper name.

 

Is it a tao or taoing and not independently Tao?

Is it a noun or a verb and not the independent name?

The beginning of everything is a gerund.

The mother of everything is a common noun.

As a consequence:

It is an independent frigidity considering its virtue.

She is an independent mistress considering her offsprings.

They are a pair of the same genesis.

They are different parts of speech having the same meaning.

Darkening dark and The gate of the numerous virtuous.

 

The philosophical arguement:

 

"Darkening dark" refers to the HengXian cosmology:

The center exists first, then so does the outer;

The mother of everything exists first, then so does the ???

 

There is no opposite, so it is prooved, that The mother of everything is independent.

 

"The gate of the numerous virtuous" refers to TaiYiShengShui cosmology:

The Great One gave birth to water.

 

The Great One and water aren't opposites, so it is proved,

that The beginning of everything is independent.

 

That'll say using the adjective independent is creating a duality!

恆道 must thus be read as independently Tao

and not as the independent Tao

Edited April 10, 2013 by lienshan

[ChiDragon]

Please follow this advice


Just get the thought across and don't play with semantics.....!!!