XieJia Posted October 20, 2011 The Mawangdui B version The trustworthy word isn't pleasingly and the pleasing word isn't trustworthily. The intelligent one isn't excessively and the excessive one isn't intelligently. The good one isn't additionally and the additional one isn't good. "holy man" isn't a collection, when considered the man himself. An answer in the affirmative is, when praising the man! Oneself answering in the affirmative is additionally. Therefore: Tao of Heaven benefits to and doesn't harm. Tao of Man is on the side of and not opposed. The subject of the Mawangdui B version is the term "holy man". "man" is the trustworthy word, the intelligent one, the good one. "holy" is the pleasing word, the excessive one, the additional one. Your question is in fact a matter of double-wording or not? Zhuangzi deals with the subject in a passage of his chapter 6: 夫卜梁倚有聖人之才而無聖人之道 我有聖人之道而無聖人之才 There was Bu-liang Yi who had the talent of a holy man, but not the Tao of a holy man, while I had the Tao of a holy man, but not the talent of a holy man. The pointe is, that 'a man having Tao' is per definition 'a holy man'! 'A holy man having Tao' is double-wording that'll say 'holy' praises 'a man having Tao'. Thank you Lienshan (I don't know what to say other than Thank you). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted October 20, 2011 Thank you Lienshan (I don't know what to say other than Thank you). He rendered you speechless, did he? Hehehe. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChiDragon Posted October 20, 2011 ................... :lol: Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
XieJia Posted October 20, 2011 Thank you Lienshan (I don't know what to say other than Thank you). The logic is completed, I don't really have any comments. Do you think the same wording 人之道 have any relevant context to chapter 77? Cheers Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lienshan Posted October 20, 2011 (edited) Do you think the same wording 人之道 have any relevant context to chapter 77? The relevant Mawangdui B chapter 77 text: 人之道云不足而奉又 余夫孰能又余 而以取奉於天者唯又道者乎 The Tao of Man posesses not enough and receives additionally. I and men, which one is gifted with an additional I similar to a received gift from the Heaven and only addition is the Tao? It's very different from the Received version and the other Mawangdui A version. The variouis editors must have had great problems with understanding the original text. Edited October 21, 2011 by lienshan Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
XieJia Posted October 21, 2011 The relevant Mawangdui B chapter 77 text: 人之道云不足而奉又 余夫孰能又余 而以取奉於天之唯又者乎 The Tao of Man posesses not enough and receives additionally. I and men, which one is gifted with an additional I similar to a received gift from the Heaven and only addition is the Tao? It's very different from the Received version and the other Mawangdui A version. The variouis editors must have had great problems with understanding the original text. Thanks again Lienshan; Me too think that the translation have to be look into from different perspective. From the text above, I think 云 and 余夫 have some significances as you have translated. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lienshan Posted October 21, 2011 (edited) I think 云 and 余夫 have some significances as you have translated. My chinese text was not copied correct so: 人之道云不足而奉又 余夫孰能又余 而以取奉於天者唯又者乎 余 was the ancient King's way of saying I (indicates singularis) 朕 was the ancient King's way of saying I (We) (indicates pluralis) 余夫 'I and men' underlines the contrast between one and everybody. My approach to this discussion of the term 'holy man' or 'sage' emits from studying the two different chapters 64 in the Guodian Tao The Ching: The early bundle A version and the later bundle C version. Laozi had a change of mind and rewrote the chapter 64. His main edition was: from 是以聖人亡為 (bundle A) to 聖人無為 (bundle C) The change from 亡為 to 無為 tells, that bundle A is the earlier, because Laozi wrote 'wu wei' 亡為 as in five other instances, while 'wu wei' written 無為 tells, that bundle C is written later in his timeline. But he did too omit 是以 'Therefore' in front of 聖人 'sage' ... Why? There was in pre-Qin chinese two ways of writing 'Therefore': 是以 (indicating the following as objective) and 故 (indicating the following as subjective). Was 'a sage' an objective or a subjective term to the elderly Laozi? The Received version of chapter 64 has the earlier 是以 before 聖人 so his doubt came first out in the daylight, when the Guodian Tao Teh Ching was exavacated in 1993 and published in 1998 Edited October 21, 2011 by lienshan Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
XieJia Posted October 21, 2011 Dear Lienshan; Thank you yet again for the historical presentation. The different term of 亡為 and 無為 proves interesting. I read as 'Letting go of acting' and 'non-acting'. As for 是以, I read it as 'Thus able'. So 是以聖人, I read as 'Thus able the sage' to do A and B. In my feeling, the Sage is objective but their way is subjective to that of themselves accordingly. (That is if I need to use those words. I don't like using the word subjective or objective.) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted October 21, 2011 In my feeling, the Sage is objective but their way is subjective to that of themselves accordingly. (That is if I need to use those words. I don't like using the word subjective or objective.) Well, I like it! Too bad if Lienshan doesn't. Hehehe. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lienshan Posted October 21, 2011 In my feeling, the Sage is objective but their way is subjective to that of themselves accordingly. (That is if I need to use those words. I don't like using the word subjective or objective.) Well, I like it! Too bad if Lienshan doesn't. Hehehe. "holy man" isn't a collection, when considered the man himself. An answer in the affirmative is, when praising the man! "holy man" in the second line is objective, "the man" praised. "holy man" in the first line is considered "the man himself" ... isn't considering a self subjective? or what's the difference between "the man" and "the man himself"? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted October 21, 2011 "holy man" isn't a collection, when considered the man himself. An answer in the affirmative is, when praising the man! "holy man" in the second line is objective, "the man" praised. "holy man" in the first line is considered "the man himself" ... isn't considering a self subjective? or what's the difference between "the man" and "the man himself"? Hehehe. Don't get me started on subjectiveity vs objectivity. We had a discussion on that just recently. But then, I think a 'truely' holy man wouldn't want to be praised in the first place. And BTW, I equate 'holy man' with 'sage'. Mother Thersa was a sage, IMO, and therefore a 'holy woman'. An no, it is not because of the religion she held to but rather the actions she took upon herself. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
XieJia Posted October 21, 2011 "holy man" isn't a collection, when considered the man himself. An answer in the affirmative is, when praising the man! "holy man" in the second line is objective, "the man" praised. "holy man" in the first line is considered "the man himself" ... isn't considering a self subjective? or what's the difference between "the man" and "the man himself"? Sorry Lienshan , the way you used high-level English makes it hard for me to understand what you are trying to say. From what I understand, there are cases that 'Sage' is used as a collective; from 是以, as Laozi saying about 'Good people that are with the way'. Other time when those 'Good people that are with the way' refers to themselves. Is this what you are trying to tell me? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
