[TTC Study] Chapter 1 of the Tao Te Ching

[Aaron]

So many people responded to the thread regarding starting a subforum about the Tao Teh Ching, I thought it might be nice to start discussing the chapters in order. What I'd like to do is present the chapter, then open the thread up for discussion on what we think the chapter is about. When I do this, I will be posting twice, the first post will contain the actual chapter, the second will be my comments on the chapter. If anyone else wants to partake in this project, I would suggest taking the same approach- Chapter first, then your comments. The intention of starting this thread is not simply to discuss my own interpretation, but rather allow people to discuss their views on the chapter and ask questions if they have them. With that said, here is Chapter One as translated by John C. H. Wu-

 

Chapter One

 

Tao can be talked about, but not the Eternal Tao.

Names can be named, but not the Eternal Name.

 

As the origin of heaven-and-earth, it is nameless:

As "the Mother" of all things, it is nameable.

 

So, as ever hidden, we should look at its inner essence:

As always manifest, we should look at its outer aspects.

 

These two flow from the same source, though differently

named;

And both are called mysteries.

 

The Mystery of mysteries is the Door of all essence.

[Aaron]

I think that any discussion of chapter one should take into account that the chapter was not included in the oldest copies of the Tao Teh Ching. In particular, chapter one doesn't appear in the Guodian slips, nor do many other chapters. I don't think that this necessarily discounts the validity of the chapter. Many academics believe that the Tao Teh Ching was not written by one man, but rather by many. With that in mind this chapter may have appeared to clear up some misconceptions that occured after the earliest versions of the Tao TEh Ching started to become popular.

 

The first two lines of Chapter One state,

 

Tao can be talked about, but not the Eternal Tao.

 

Right off the bat we have a distinction between the 'Tao' and 'Eternal Tao'. What we are being told is quite simply that what we are talking about, what we are about to hear, is not about the 'Eternal Tao'.

 

Names can be named, but not the Eternal Name.

 

Again, what we hear is that, although we can apply names to things, there is something that cannot be named. In my opinion what is being said here is that even calling it the 'Eternal Tao' isn't adequate, that there is something that exists that we can never describe or apply names to, something that is beyond description. The only thing we can do with words is give a description of what we can see and know.

 

As the origin of heaven-and-earth, it is nameless:

As 'the Mother' of all things, it is nameable.

 

There are two important things to keep in mind when reading these two lines (other than what's already been said about the previous lines), first that this unameable force was the creator of all things, second that it was 'the Mother', as in, not 'a mother', but 'the Mother', the force that gave life to everything in existence. As the creator of all things we can name it 'the Mother'.

 

So, as ever hidden, we should look at its inner essence:

As always manifest, we should look at its outer aspects.

 

This is the first reference to the duality of things to occur in the later texts of the Tao Teh Ching, the idea that there is an inner essence and an outer aspect. The essence cannot be seen (don't get confused by the 'look' reference), only the outer 'aspect' can. The important thing to keep in mind is that one should not exclusively look at one or the other, rather 'we should look' at both the 'inner essence' and 'outer aspect'.

 

These two flow from the same source, though differently named;

And both are called mysteries.

 

In these lines we are being reminded that the 'inner essence' and the 'outer aspect', although different, come from the same source, and that regardless of whether one can see it or not see it, they are both linked to 'the Mother'. I believe that this is a reminder that one is no more important than the other. When we examine the following passages, the remainder of the Tao Teh Ching, we need to keep in mind that everything that comes from the Tao should be held in equal esteem.

 

The Mystery of mysteries is the Door of all essence.

 

Stop for a second and notice the two capitalized words 'Mystery' and 'Door', this is important, because just as Tao, Eternal Name, and Mother are given significance by being captalized, so are the 'Mystery' and 'Door'. This isn't just any mystery, this is 'the Mystery', the first mystery, the first unknown, the original. Only by understanding this mystery can we pass through the 'Door', the only way of opening ourselves to all essence.

 

I don't think that this is meant to imply that essence is more important than the outer aspect, but rather that this is the only true entrance to 'all essence'. Explaining the difference between 'all essence' and 'essence' isn't necessary, except to say we can experience some 'essence' and still not experience 'all essence'.

 

I hope this is helpful for anyone reading. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to express them.

 

Aaron

Edited November 27, 2010 by Twinner

[Marblehead]

Hi Aaron,

 

My take on this first chapter is setting the playing field for the discussion of the entire philosophy. There are two aspects (or views) of Tao: We have the 'essence' and we have its 'manifestations'.

 

We cannot speak about its essence (the eternal aspect of Tao) but we can speak of its manifestations (the observable universe).

 

It is this chapter that led me to start using the terms "Mystery" and "Manifest". Later I bought Wayne L Wang's translation and he uses the terms "Wu" and "Yo". I have grown to using both during different discussions.

 

However, "Mystery" and "Wu" cannot be used synonymously with "Tao" because even the Mystery is an aspect of Tao. So the thought just entered my mind that Tao is twice removed from reality (the Manifest). How could we ever speak of any aspects of Tao when we can't even speak of any aspects of Mystery? (A discussion of Chi comes in later chapters even though it is one of the primal aspects of Tao.)

 

I really don't like John Wu's line 8: And both are called mysteries. because this is really not true. The Manifest can be fully understood therefore it is not a mystery.

 

Wang, on the other had translates it as: they are different manifestations of the same. although I would prefer that he had used the word "aspects" in stead of "manifestations".

 

In your explanation, and I feel it is very good, I did feel a bit of a chill when you used the word "creator". Way too many connotations with that word for me to accept it when speaking of Taoist philosophy.

 

But bottom line, the chapter states that All is One and this One we name as Tao but this is only for our own convenience. We can speak of its manifest aspects because these have form but we cannot speak of the mystery because it has yet no form.

[3bob]

I think that any discussion of chapter one should take into account that the chapter was not included in the oldest copies of the Tao Teh Ching. In particular, chapter one doesn't appear in the Guodian slips, nor do many other chapters. I don't think that this necessarily discounts the validity of the chapter. Many academics believe that the Tao Teh Ching was not written by one man, but rather by many. With that in mind this chapter may have appeared to clear up some misconceptions that occured after the earliest versions of the Tao TEh Ching started to become popular.

 

The first two lines of Chapter One state,

 

Tao can be talked about, but not the Eternal Tao.

 

Right off the bat we have a distinction between the 'Tao' and 'Eternal Tao'. What we are being told is quite simply that what we are talking about, what we are about to hear, is not about the 'Eternal Tao'.

 

Names can be named, but not the Eternal Name.

 

Again, what we hear is that, although we can apply names to things, there is something that cannot be named. In my opinion what is being said here is that even calling it the 'Eternal Tao' isn't adequate, that there is something that exists that we can never describe or apply names to, something that is beyond description. The only thing we can do with words is give a description of what we can see and know.

 

As the origin of heaven-and-earth, it is nameless:

As 'the Mother' of all things, it is nameable.

 

There are two important things to keep in mind when reading these two lines (other than what's already been said about the previous lines), first that this unameable force was the creator of all things, second that it was 'the Mother', as in, not 'a mother', but 'the Mother', the force that gave life to everything in existence. As the creator of all things we can name it 'the Mother'.

 

So, as ever hidden, we should look at its inner essence:

As always manifest, we should look at its outer aspects.

 

This is the first reference to the duality of things to occur in the later texts of the Tao Teh Ching, the idea that there is an inner essence and an outer aspect. The essence cannot be seen (don't get confused by the 'look' reference), only the outer 'aspect' can. The important thing to keep in mind is that one should not exclusively look at one or the other, rather 'we should look' at both the 'inner essence' and 'outer aspect'.

 

These two flow from the same source, though differently named;

And both are called mysteries.

 

In these lines we are being reminded that the 'inner essence' and the 'outer aspect', although different, come from the same source, and that regardless of whether one can see it or not see it, they are both linked to 'the Mother'. I believe that this is a reminder that one is no more important than the other. When we examine the following passages, the remainder of the Tao Teh Ching, we need to keep in mind that everything that comes from the Tao should be held in equal esteem.

 

The Mystery of mysteries is the Door of all essence.

 

Stop for a second and notice the two capitalized words 'Mystery' and 'Door', this is important, because just as Tao, Eternal Name, and Mother are given significance by being captalized, so are the 'Mystery' and 'Door'. This isn't just any mystery, this is 'the Mystery', the first mystery, the first unknown, the original. Only by understanding this mystery can we pass through the 'Door', the only way of opening ourselves to all essence.

 

I don't think that this is meant to imply that essence is more important than the outer aspect, but rather that this is the only true entrance to 'all essence'. Explaining the difference between 'all essence' and 'essence' isn't necessary, except to say we can experience some 'essence' and still not experience 'all essence'.

 

I hope this is helpful for anyone reading. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to express them.

 

Aaron

 

Thanks for spending the time and making the effort Aaron!

[3bob]

It is well that She can not be caught, indeed it well!

 

Om

[Aaron]

Hello Marblehead,

 

I'm not sure how what you said is different from what I just said, am I missing something? In regards to creator, I am not implying God, but rather the CREATOR, the creation force that created everything. I'm sure that many former Christians will find the use of that word uncomfortable, but I think it's the best word for the description.

 

I respect John C. H. Wu's translation because he was not only a Chinese philosopher, but also a well known and respected translator. His use of the word mystery, for me, doesn't imply that you cannot understand these things, but rather that they are mysterious. Also the physical manifestation is more than just outward appearance, it's also how the physical world works, so with that in mind, it is quite mysterious.

 

Aaron

Edited November 27, 2010 by Twinner

[Aaron]

Having problems with the website. I hit edit and keeps wanting to reply for some reason... corrected this with prior post.

 

Aaron

Edited November 27, 2010 by Twinner

[rene]

It is well that She can not be caught, indeed it well!

 

Om

She need not be caught to be ridden. (-:

[rene]

Twinner - thanks for getting things going!

 

My fav is the Feng/English translation. If anyone happens to have the 25th Anniversary release of the original, it tells a small story of how the translation came to be - and the final version was actually written by the editor, Toinette Lippe! Click for story So much for pedigree. LOL

 

Feng/English Chapter One

 

The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.

The name that can be named is not the eternal name.

The nameless is the beginning of heaven and Earth.

The named is the mother of the ten thousand things.

Ever desireless, one can see the mystery.

Ever desiring, one sees the manifestations.

These two spring from the same source but differ in name; this appears as darkness.

Darkness within darkness.

The gate to all mystery.

 

For me, Chapter 1 pretty much nails it - and the rest of the DDJ chapters are delightful illustrations, examples and explanations for those who might enjoy more to understand the applications and implications.

[Aaron]

Hello Rene,

 

Feng is very interesting to read. His translation is different from many of the other translations out there and it definitely gives you an idea of how different Chinese translators viewed the text. In regards to chapter one, I think you have hit it on the nail, the chapter explains as simply as possible what the Tao is. Now in the same way, if one is wise, when they hear of the Tao, they practice it diligently. If one is average, they hear of the Tao and waver between belief and disbelief. The foolish hear of the Tao and laugh. We need the foolish to remind us that it's not as important as we'd like to believe it to be.

 

The Tao will be there whether we "practice" it or not. The practice of the Tao isn't about necessity, but rather whether or not someone feels the need or desire to practice it. I think that's why the Sages of old didn't attempt to convert people, but rather just did what they felt was needed.

 

Aaron

[rene]

Marblehead, hi

 

It is this chapter that led me to start using the terms "Mystery" and "Manifest". Later I bought Wayne L Wang's translation and he uses the terms "Wu" and "Yo". I have grown to using both during different discussions.

I worked with Dr. Wang on the first half of his book, and his Wu and Yo in Ch 1, and throughout, his TTC translation weren't intended to be synonymous with Mystery and Manifest; rather instead the terms point at two of the three fundamental states of Tao (Oneness being the third).

 

 

However, "Mystery" and "Wu" cannot be used synonymously with "Tao" because even the Mystery is an aspect of Tao.

Agree.

 

So the thought just entered my mind that Tao is twice removed from reality (the Manifest). How could we ever speak of any aspects of Tao when we can't even speak of any aspects of Mystery?

Twice removed, but only in a manner of speaking. If you look at an object using a mirror, what you see is not the object but its reflection, yes? You can describe, and experience, the reflection - and it can be a very accurate description, but it's a description of the reflection. Would the information you glean about the object by observing the reflection be complete? Nope. Would the object be similar to its reflection? You betcha. Similar enough maybe for a starting point.

 

Observe the Manifest; see Tao's reflection.

[Aaron]

Marblehead, hi

 

 

I worked with Dr. Wang on the first half of his book, and his Wu and Yo in Ch 1, and throughout, his TTC translation weren't intended to be synonymous with Mystery and Manifest; rather instead the terms point at two of the three fundamental states of Tao (Oneness being the third).

 

 

 

Agree.

 

 

Twice removed, but only in a manner of speaking. If you look at an object using a mirror, what you see is not the object but its reflection, yes? You can describe, and experience, the reflection - and it can be a very accurate description, but it's a description of the reflection. Would the information you glean about the object by observing the reflection be complete? Nope. Would the object be similar to its reflection? You betcha. Similar enough maybe for a starting point.

 

Observe the Manifest; see Tao's reflection.

 

 

Very well said. I would add that there is a common misconception, as you've pointed out, that the Tao is the essence, and that the manifest in some way isn't. I think that's why it's so important to grasp the fundamentals of chapter one, it reminds us that the Tao isn't just what we can't see, but also what we can see. Also it reminds us that the Tao that we're talking about isn't the Eternal Tao, we can never talk about that.

 

"He who knows does not speak,

He who speaks does not know."

 

In other words, if you ever hear someone tell you what the Tao is, they obviously do not know.

 

Aaron

Edited November 27, 2010 by Twinner

[rene]

"He who knows does not speak,

He who speaks does not know."

 

I look forward to Ch 56.

[Marblehead]

Hi Rene,

 

Yes, I saw your name in the "Acknowlegements" when I first bought the book.

 

I worked with Dr. Wang on the first half of his book, and his Wu and Yo in Ch 1, and throughout, his TTC translation weren't intended to be synonymous with Mystery and Manifest; rather instead the terms point at two of the three fundamental states of Tao (Oneness being the third).

 

"Dynamic Tao", page 57, Chapter 7.2 The Holographic Principle, Figure 4 is exactly how I use the terms Mystery (Wu) and Manifest (Yo). I know what you are speaking to and whenever I refer to the 'states' of Tao or 'states' of a persons 'awareness' I will always use the word 'state' or 'condition'.

 

But I generally use the words 'Mystery' and 'Manifest' when speaking of the universe (The total essence of Tao?) and 'Wu' and 'Yo' when speaking of the state or condition of Tao or man. In my understanding these are simply different aspects of the same thing.

 

Twice removed, but only in a manner of speaking. If you look at an object using a mirror, what you see is not the object but its reflection, yes? You can describe, and experience, the reflection - and it can be a very accurate description, but it's a description of the reflection. Would the information you glean about the object by observing the reflection be complete? Nope. Would the object be similar to its reflection? You betcha. Similar enough maybe for a starting point.

 

Yeah, I know, I went overboard with the 'twice removed' thing because really no thing is ever removed from Tao. (Of course, Te is a different story.) Yes, the reflection concept is perfect. And this is why if we are total 'Yo' that is all we have, the physical reflection.

 

Example: I have seen a few women who's "Yo" was complete and amongst the most beautiful things but yet they were totally lacking of "Wu". In other words, they were lacking of an inner essence. (I'm not picking on women, I just don't pay that much attention to men.)

[Marblehead]

Hi Aaron,

 

Nope, you are not missing anything. I just wanted to comment to your opening post to set a standard that we actually discuss each of the chapters including various translations of the chapters.

 

Hello Marblehead,

 

I'm not sure how what you said is different from what I just said, am I missing something? In regards to creator, I am not implying God, but rather the CREATOR, the creation force that created everything. I'm sure that many former Christians will find the use of that word uncomfortable, but I think it's the best word for the description.

 

There are some folks on this board who would take the word 'creator' and make it equal to the word 'god' and state that Tao is therefore God and therefore Taoist Philosophy is really a religion. I will never allow that to happen on my watch.

 

I respect John C. H. Wu's translation because he was not only a Chinese philosopher, but also a well known and respected translator. His use of the word mystery, for me, doesn't imply that you cannot understand these things, but rather that they are mysterious. Also the physical manifestation is more than just outward appearance, it's also how the physical world works, so with that in mind, it is quite mysterious.

 

Aaron

 

I had no intention of appearing negative toward Wu or his translation. I was simply presenting an alternate translation of that half-line that I, personally, like better. I like Robert Henricks translation very much and I am sure that during the discussions of the various chapters I will be presenting lines of various chapters of his translation.

 

Yes, the mysteries of the universe. Many people speak of miracles in a manner suggesting that these miracles are supernatural. I do not hold to the concept of anything in the manifest universe being supernatural. Everything that ever has been, is nor, or ever will be is totally natural. Sure, we don't always understand a thing or event so we make up our own explanations. Some people like miracles so they make them up fairly regularly.

[Aaron]

Hello Marblehead,

 

Taoist Philosophy for most people is a religion, there's no need to bring God into it in order to make it so. In regards to the Tao Teh Ching, the first chapter presents a very religious ideal of the universe. The Tao is presented tantamount to God (by the way I'm not a Christian, just presenting an argument).

 

I can't see how relating philosophical Taoism to a religion is bad, unless one decides that religion is bad. If thats so, I think the problem stems more from one's concept of religion than it does Taoism.

 

I think Henrick's translation isn't accurate, but rather reflective of converting Taoism to western ideals. When you read Wu or Feng, translators that were raised to speak Chinese first, then learned English, I believe you get a better idea of the original intent.

 

This doesn't mean that someone from the West can't understand the Tao Teh Ching, but rather, that I personally prefer reading a translation that is done by someone who is a native speaker. However, if that translation resonates with you, then you should share it, so that we can see where you are drawing your thoughts from.

 

 

 

Aaron

[Marblehead]

Hello Marblehead,

 

Taoist Philosophy for most people is a religion, there's no need to bring God into it in order to make it so. In regards to the Tao Teh Ching, the first chapter presents a very religious ideal of the universe. The Tao is presented tantamount to God (by the way I'm not a Christian, just presenting an argument).

 

I can't see how relating philosophical Taoism to a religion is bad, unless one decides that religion is bad. If thats so, I think the problem stems more from one's concept of religion than it does Taoism.

 

I think Henrick's translation isn't accurate, but rather reflective of converting Taoism to western ideals. When you read Wu or Feng, translators that were raised to speak Chinese first, then learned English, I believe you get a better idea of the original intent.

 

This doesn't mean that someone from the West can't understand the Tao Teh Ching, but rather, that I personally prefer reading a translation that is done by someone who is a native speaker. However, if that translation resonates with you, then you should share it, so that we can see where you are drawing your thoughts from.

 

Aaron

 

Hi Aaron,

 

I appreciate your last sentence more than you will ever realize.

 

Henricks translation has been acclained by many to be the best scolastic translation in print. I realize that many suggest that he doesn't have the Chinese 'soul' in his translation. But then, he never suggested that he did. For him, his translation was a scolastic venture just as all the other translations of Chinese writings he has undertaken.

 

As far as the Chinese 'soul' in a translation is concerned, I am partial toward Lin Yutang's work. He even gets gritty like real people do. His work on Chuang Tzu is fantastic!

 

Yes, I know that many prefer Feng/English.

 

Derek Lin did a pretty darn good job too. I might make a point of quoting him somewhere along in this series.

 

And so, to the religious aspect of Taoism. There have oh! so many people who remind me that Taoism is a religion too. I am very well aware of that. I have no problem with that. I am "not" a religious Taoist. I hold to no religions. The Tao is all I need.

 

Yes, there are a number of chapters in the TTC that can easily be used as support that Taoism is also a religion and that some of these chapters actually point to a 'creator' Tao. I do not hold to any of these ideas. But I fully accept that there are many who do and I have no problem with that.

 

I mean, "One gave birth to two." One is a female god. What else could it be? But I do not personify Tao.

 

I have always tried very hard to not speak negatively about religions and their followers (except in a few cases where I felt it was fair, honest and true). I have spoken against the institution of organized religion and I am sure I will do so in the future as well. But that's a different story and concept.

 

It really wouldn't matter to me if you also held to the Christian religion. My best male friend is a Christian. We have some excellent discussions now and then. We sometimes even get a little frisky. Hehehe.

 

I also know that there are many Chinese who hold to Taoism as a philosophy of life and hold to either Buddhism or Christianity as a religion. I see no problem with this either.

 

Anyhow, it appears that you are going to keep me on my toes around here and I look forward to all the enjoyment we both are going to gain from that.

 

So, just to allow you a better insight of me, we could say that I am a Nietzschian-Atheistic-Taoist.

Edited November 27, 2010 by Marblehead

[Aaron]

Hello Marblehead,

 

I am by no means a religious Taoist or even a philisophical Taoist. I think anyone that practices the Tao shouldn't feel the need to identify themselves as one. I am simply me. This of course is not about Chapter one, so I would suggest rather than continue to debate religion here, if you wish you can private message me and I'll pass along my e-mail, or we can even start another thread for that purpose.

 

Aaron

[strawdog65]

 

 

 

 

I mean, "One gave birth to two." One is a female god. What else could it be? But I do not personify Tao.

 

 

I believe that this quote from the TTC could also be seen from the

perspective of the transmutation of energy from one form to another.

 

In example: ice into water, water into steam.

 

I also have no interest in personification of TAO.

 

So for me, I choose to see this reference as an indication that

the mutability of all things, especially energy, is a reference

point to there being no beginning and no end.

 

For the same is true of energy...it exists in some form at all times,

only to be realized by it's manifestation in the physical realm.

Seeming to come from nothing, based on only our lack of being able to

explain phenomena not understood at the present time.

 

We are energy.

We are shadows/reflections

of Tao manifest in this reality.

 

 

Peace!

[Marblehead]

Nice post Strawdog. Thanks for joining in.

[dawei]

So, as ever hidden, we should look at its inner essence:

As always manifest, we should look at its outer aspects.

 

This is the first reference to the duality of things to occur in the later texts of the Tao Teh Ching, the idea that there is an inner essence and an outer aspect. The essence cannot be seen (don't get confused by the 'look' reference), only the outer 'aspect' can. The important thing to keep in mind is that one should not exclusively look at one or the other, rather 'we should look' at both the 'inner essence' and 'outer aspect'.

 

These two flow from the same source, though differently named;

And both are called mysteries.

 

In these lines we are being reminded that the 'inner essence' and the 'outer aspect', although different, come from the same source, and that regardless of whether one can see it or not see it, they are both linked to 'the Mother'. I believe that this is a reminder that one is no more important than the other. When we examine the following passages, the remainder of the Tao Teh Ching, we need to keep in mind that everything that comes from the Tao should be held in equal esteem.

 

The Mystery of mysteries is the Door of all essence.

 

Stop for a second and notice the two capitalized words 'Mystery' and 'Door', this is important, because just as Tao, Eternal Name, and Mother are given significance by being captalized, so are the 'Mystery' and 'Door'. This isn't just any mystery, this is 'the Mystery', the first mystery, the first unknown, the original. Only by understanding this mystery can we pass through the 'Door', the only way of opening ourselves to all essence.

Hi Twinner. Nice Start with this important chapter which is not without its controversy. I won't get into the Wu vs You stuff, it gets a good beating anywhere it's discussed.

 

As you mentioned, it's not in the Guodian (GD) version but with that absence the next oldest version is the Ma wang Dui (MWD) which did have a few differences. I won't discuss the most commonly known which is the MWD had Heng whereas the Wang Bi (WB) has Chang in the opening lines due to the taboo use of the rulers name in writings.

 

I would rather talk about the lines I quoted above. There are some small changes from the MWD I think of interest:

 

WB: So, as ever hidden, we should look at its inner essence:;

The last word is Miao 妙 with the lady radical to the left. The MWD has Miao 眇 which has an eye radical to the left.

 

So the oldest character has a suggestion of 'seeing' in the character of Miao: Hendricks translates the ending as: 'perceive its subtlety'.

 

WB: These two flow from the same source, though differently named;

And both are called mysteries.;

The MWD does NOT have a few of these characters.

 

WB: 此兩者同出而異名同謂之玄。

MWD:-兩者同出-異名同謂 --。

Hendricks: "These Two together emerge; They have different names yet they are called the same."

 

WB: The Mystery of mysteries is the Door of all essence.

The last word is Miao 妙 with the lady radical to the left. The MWD has Miao 眇 which has an eye radical to the left. Hendricks translate again as 'subtlety'.

 

It would seem that WB version tries to make it more mysterious and 'dark'. WB was a part of a group of thinkers/scholars under the term XuanXue (Dark Learning, Mysterious Learning). Note the 玄 (Xuan) three times in the chapter 1. He seems to find it important to emphasis, even embrace, the darker more mysterious aspects which the MWD did not necessarily emphasis as much. At least that is my opinion.

 

Hope you find that interesting.

 

FYI: I choose Hendricks translation since he is one of the very few to do one on the MWD (and the GD). Not because you don't care for him

Edited November 28, 2010 by dawei

[Aaron]

Hello Dawei,

 

Thanks for the insight. I wasn't aware of that, but it does bring up some interesting thoughts regarding the later manuscripts. I'll have to take some time to see what the ramifications may be in the long run. I think what I'll do is read the Henricks version again and compare it to the Wu (which I think is based on the Wang Bi) and see how different the two are.

 

In the meantime, I'm going to take a break from the forums. I have started to realize that I know much less about Taoism than I thought I did. I've studied the Tao Teh Ching (Wu's version) for around 20 years, but I have only read the Zhuangzhi once and I've yet to learn anything about Qigong or Tai Chi, other than cursory attempt to learn Tai Chi around 17 years ago, which I gave up because I didn't have the patience for it at that time.

 

With that in mind, rather than talk about a text, without sufficient understanding, I will begin to study these other facets of Taoism and get back to you. Til then I'm taking a break from the forums and focusing on personal enrichment, for lack of a better term. I wish you well and everyone else also.

 

Aaron

Edited November 28, 2010 by Twinner

[Marblehead]

Hi Aaron,

 

Please don't fade away. I have enjoyed our interactions very much! You have already added so much to the board.

 

 

 

Hi Dawei,

 

Nice comments. The points you were making are very valid, from my understanding. In my opinion, it is sad that Lin Yutang didn't have access to the Guodian version. I am sure he would have done it justice.

 

I need to get Derek Lin's translation out again and do an in-depth read of it as I think he did a pretty darn good job with his.

 

I love the way you analyzed the Chinese characters. Stig does this also and it adds so much to the discussions, IMO.

 

So let's make sure we keep this series alive and well. I think it best to discuss each chapter one by one with a new thread for each chapter and we stay with each chapter until we have beat it to death then someone start a new thread with the next chapter. I also think it would be nice to use as many different translations (the most popular) for the opening post and then compare/contrast followed by interpretations.

 

Anyhow, I think we have a great start with this series.

 

Where is Stig?!?!?!

[dawei]

Nice comments. The points you were making are very valid, from my understanding. In my opinion, it is sad that Lin Yutang didn't have access to the Guodian version. I am sure he would have done it justice.

 

I need to get Derek Lin's translation out again and do an in-depth read of it as I think he did a pretty darn good job with his.

 

I love the way you analyzed the Chinese characters. Stig does this also and it adds so much to the discussions, IMO.

 

So let's make sure we keep this series alive and well. I think it best to discuss each chapter one by one with a new thread for each chapter and we stay with each chapter until we have beat it to death then someone start a new thread with the next chapter. I also think it would be nice to use as many different translations (the most popular) for the opening post and then compare/contrast followed by interpretations.

That's an interesting point about Yutang. I just checked his commentary and he wrote the intro in 1948! So he didn't seem to have access to the Mawangdui version either!

 

I think Derek does a good job in many cases capturing a meaning some others don't seem to quite be able to do. His translation is worth a look. Probably like everyone, I have my favorites and buy those authors so they are close at hand. I do like to compare/contrast authors and versions. Look forward to more.

[3bob]

obviously we are part of Tao personified or formed, so the idea or implied sense of protecting ourselves from various forms or personifications through types of denial or rejection of same does not compute for me. Thus there are names and or personifications directly applicable all the way to the "One", while beyond that there are only alludings to with names, which still does not mean such names or alludings to are not or can not be conducive to same.

 

Om