Scholastic Study of the Received Version of the Tao Te Ching.

[ChiDragon]

I was requested by one of the members here to establish some references for the Received Version of the Tao Te Ching. In order to due so, I must do it bilingually using the original classic as basis with no other external influences. To the best of my knowledge, this section was sat up leaned for the people who are familiar with the Chinese cultural heritage. So, they can express themselves more freely with a little dignity and some linguistic authority for some say so within their heritage.

In order to keep the fundamental literature to the purest with no contaminant, all the characters, terms, thoughts and philosophies will be discussed in accordance with the Chinese native scholarship as a standard to avoid intermingle with the other ideas. Therefore, may I ask all the members to give us some lead room with respect; so we can proceed with the unprecedented event in searching for the closest meaning of the Tao Te Ching in the eyes of the native Chinese. Thank you very much for your cooperation.

Edited January 29, 2013 by ChiDragon

[ChiDragon]

Why do we need the Received Version of the Tao Te Ching....???

There were many copies, not version, of the Tao Te Ching. Those copies could be written be anybody in any education level during the past couple centuries. Those were written by different people in different periods of time. When ideas passed around, there will be something gets lost in the translation. Some people do make changes to the TTC in their favor for whatever reason and it was done. The unearthed copies had shown phonetics and incorrect characters were used to cause the phrase to be out of context. For those who are, natives and foreign scholars, not familiar with the classic will be misled and cause misinterpretation. Unfortunately, as in the foreigner case, the translations may be resulted with greater errors inevitably.

[ChiDragon]

There is one thing about classic; it has no punctuations. The reader has to know where to place a pause to get a good meaning out of the text. In a worse case, if the pause was place at the wrong spot, then the meaning may be completely different. Sometimes, it may be logical but wrong meaning or misinterpretation. It is better off when it is illogical because the reader may try to pause somewhere else to have the text to make sense.

Chapter One has a very critical situation in punctuation. I will show how the comma was placed and cause the meanings to be out of whack. Thus, Chapter One is a best place to start with our discussion to shown this critical situation.

[takaaki]

I was requested by one of the members here to establish some references for the Received Version of the Tao Te Ching. In order to due so, I must do it bilingually using the original classic as basis with no other external influences. To the best of my knowledge, this section was sat up leaned for the people who are familiar with the Chinese cultural heritage. So, they can express themselves more freely with a little dignity and some authority for some say so within their heritage.

 

Dawei raised two questions which, I think, deserve attention and need to be addressed. I will rephrase those questions below.

 

Question 1. There is a doubt that the Received Version possess established scholarly merit. Can you provide some historical facts related to its development and cite scholars who contributed to this work? For example, the Shih-chi (史記) was written by Ssu-ma Chien.

 

Question 2. There is a claim that The Received Version has no western readership because there are no English translations. Is your English translation presented in this forum the only one in existence?

 

You have posted the Chinese text of the Tao Te Ching for each Chapter in the Tao Te Ching discussion forum. Is that the Received Version?

 

Is the Received Version posted in Chinese on the internet? Do you have the link?

[ChiDragon]

1. The Received Version is a latest edition done by the modern scholars.

2. I don't know what is the western readership has anything to do with it. As I had indicated before, I was using the Received Version for all my translations.

Please don't get all heat up with the western thinking right now. Wait until I give you a presentation, then you will know what I am talking about.

Edited January 29, 2013 by ChiDragon

[dawei]

I think it is good that it is mentioned that this is in the eyes of the chinese native scholars and is meant to convey their understanding of the characters and meaning of their version of the TTC. Part of any correction process will require understanding the section meaning. Thus, the corrections are in the favor of their understanding. I think this is reasonable and is the norm as one can see this in past versions (Heshang Gong or Wang Bi).

 

I do not doubt the scholarly approach (or attempts) they made. So Question #1 which I think I raised (and if I didn't say it this clearly I do now), is: where is the western scholarship?

 

All versions of the TTC have had countless reviews and comments and then translations. The Received version stands alone as having no western scholarly review, as far as I know... but I am glad to see this thread so we can clarify the exposure of the Received Text to the western scholars, or we will at least understand the depth of its obscurity. If it is the latter, then there can be various reasons for that but I don't care to speculate as that is another issue.

 

The second Question posed above is on a readership level rather than a scholarship one... but I think they are linked and the former issue (I posed about lack of western scholarship) will reflect the lack of western readership.

 

But I hope that both the original questions can be address as I think they are useful to get any possible background, and my issue may be addressed as well.

 

I have actually seen links to the received text in past years but seem to recall there was actually more than one and that would confuse issues... but if there is actually more than one than it would be good to clarify if this is the case and which one is used as the basis of the thread.

 

The trickiest part is getting the final meaning down into english which may not be what the native scholars had in mind; and it may not actually correspond to what they are saying or thinking... That will be one external influence once someone other than the native scholars do a translation. So we will then no longer have the native scholar text but someone else's translation (meaning and understanding) of the native scholars Received Version.

 

Thanks for the thread.

[dawei]

Please don't get all heat up with the western thinking right now.

 

Just realize it has nothing to do with western thinking... yet... this is purely a scholarly understanding of its background and exposure to the western world. If you are not aware of a single translation in english or any western scholarly peer review or papers, then that is ok to say. It is enough to just tell the truth as far as it is known. If nothing is known then that is a valid answer too. Present away.

[ChiDragon]

Here is the book I am using written by most knowledgeable modern scholar, 陳鼓應.

All the information there are in the world is in his book. The westerners are so happy with the ancient stuff and their one time translation and never bothered to update nor revise their work. Especially they treat their translations as a bible and never recheck the validity of the outdated work. Thus it's really getting on my nerves.

The Received Version is in this book that the west was never aware of.

http://www.doc88.com/p-99425151684.html

 

[dawei]

All the information there are in the world is in his book. The westerners are so happy with the ancient stuff and their one time translation and never bothered to update nor revise their work. Especially they treat their translations as a bible and never recheck the validity of the outdated work. Thus it's really getting on my nerves.

 

You said to not get all heated up over western thinking. I think to keep to your title meaning (Scholastic Study), there should be no western bashing either. How about we stay objective and show respect like you asked. It could be as simple as, the book may be viewed as yet another commentary on the TTC. I don't think we're in a position to say why the entire world has not taken notice of this book.

 

All we seem to be able to say is that the world does not seem to know about it or at least has not reviewed and written anything (to our knowledge) about it.

 

While a link to the entire book is great, the bigger problem is going to be that nobody can try to copy the text if they wanted to look at this, or translate something, etc. So that means all the introduction or notes, etc are not accessible (or so I think).

 

But a good start and look forward to seeing what you can share is under the hood of this book.

Edited January 29, 2013 by dawei

[takaaki]

Why do we need the Received Version of the Tao Te Ching....???

 

There were many copies, not version, of the Tao Te Ching. Those copies could be written be anybody in any education level during the past couple centuries. Those were written by different people in different periods of time. When ideas passed around, there will be something gets lost in the translation. Some people do make changes to the TTC in their favor for whatever reason and it was done. The unearthed copies had shown phonetics and incorrect characters were used to cause the phrase to be out of context. For those who are, natives and foreign scholars, not familiar with the classic will be misled and cause misinterpretation. Unfortunately, as in the foreigner case, the translations may be resulted with greater errors inevitably.

Historical studies of the Tao Te Ching are as important as the study of the Tao Te Ching itself. I feel this is the scholarly approach which is as objective and detached as a scientific inquiry. This is the way of a wine taster who tests the wine for quality without swallowing the wine. In this way, you begin your study of the Tao Te Ching as a scholar and you end your study as a scholar without turning into a Taoist.

 

Dawei (I am not pointing at the person but the mind-set) maintains that, in the study of the Tao Te Ching, one has to ingest everything - philosophy, spiritualism, folklore - lock, stock and barrel. This is the way of a sake drinker who drinks the sake for stimulation and imbibes deeply in the brew. In this way, you begin your study of the Tao Te Ching as a scholar and you end your study as anything from a Mao Shan Shaman to a hippie-bearded US professor in Asian Studies intoxicated by the Tao. .

 

You have brought to light the dangers of getting misled by the Chinese manuscripts themselves that need careful examination by dedicated objective Chinese scholars. The Tao Te Ching in its present Chinese form is undeniably an impressive piece of work. Small wonder that it has inspired so many translations by foreign scholars of the liberal arts.

Edited January 29, 2013 by takaaki

[ChiDragon]

 

Historical studies of the Tao Te Ching are as important as the study of the Tao Te Ching itself. I feel this is the scholarly approach which is as objective and detached as a scientific inquiry. This is the way of a wine taster who tests the wine for quality without swallowing the wine. In this way, you begin your study of the Tao Te Ching as a scholar and you end your study as a scholar without turning into a Taoist.

 

 

That is correct. I am study the philosophy of the Tao Te Ching as a 道家 other than a 道士. However, I may follow the principles of Tao and still practice Chi Kung and Tai Chi for health benefits as a 道士 without getting into the 道教.

Edited January 29, 2013 by ChiDragon

[dawei]

Dawei (I am not pointing at the person but the mind-set) maintains that, in the study of the Tao Te Ching, one has to ingest everything - philosophy, spiritualism, folklore - lock, stock and barrel. This is the way of a sake drinker who drinks the sake for stimulation and imbibes deeply in the brew. In this way, you begin your study of the Tao Te Ching as a scholar and you end your study as anything from a Mao Shan Shaman to a hippie-bearded US professor in Asian Studies intoxicated by the Tao. .

 

You have brought to light the dangers of getting misled by the Chinese manuscripts themselves that need careful examination by dedicated objective Chinese scholars. The Tao Te Ching in its present Chinese form is undeniably an impressive piece of work. Small wonder that it has inspired so many translations by foreign scholars of the liberal arts.

 

I agree to a degree. I accept that some will only taste Cabernet in order to understand Cabernet. And some will only taste California Red's to understand California Red's. I tend to be open to the idea that all Wine's offer something unique and there may could be something to learn by also tasting wines from Chile, Africa, and Europe... My palate is usually wide open for tasting. That is my nature.

 

BUT, In the end, I will have tasted much of the 10,000 Wines raising and falling around the world. I won't be able to drink them all nor will I even like them all. When all is said and done, I do prefer certain varieties of Red's with subtle notes of vanilla and oak with a velvety soft tannin finish.

 

"need careful examination by dedicated objective Chinese scholars." -- That is the only correction I would make to this line... but for the purposes of this thread, we have to accept your original line as that is the only choice.

 

Maybe through the course of this, we could actually get some western scholar's opinion of the book.... meaning, maybe someone here will reach out to someone they know or we can research that angle... but I don't want to side-track the focus here on the text itself. This is just a side note.

Edited January 29, 2013 by dawei

[ChiDragon]

That is the only correction.......????
Who gave you the right to change someone's intended meaning.....???

"need careful examination by dedicated objective Chinese scholars." -- That is the only correction I would make to this line... but for the purposes ofhis thread, we have to accept your original line as that is the only choice.

Edited January 29, 2013 by ChiDragon

[dawei]

This is an english comprehension issue. I used the word 'correction' but if you understand the entire passage you will see it is not a correction in the way you think... it is a form of communicating a small difference while agreeing at some point.

 

I did not change another's intended meaning. I showed where I agree to a large degree (minus one word). Thus I gave what would be MY intended meaning to the mind-set mentioned and the point of this thread .

 

Finally you will see that I finished with an acknowledgement to HIS intended meaning. Which means, I understand him. And I have shared my thought so can understand me better (my mindset).

 

This is basic communication and discussion. Everyone has a right to discussion.

[Reed]

Chapter One has a very critical situation in punctuation. I will show how the comma was placed and cause the meanings to be out of whack. Thus, Chapter One is a best place to start with our discussion to shown this critical situation.

 

This sounds interesting. I'm curious to see what this is.

[ChiDragon]

This is an english comprehension issue. I used the word 'correction' but if you understand the entire passage you will see it is not a correction in the way you think... it is a form of communicating a small difference while agreeing at some point.

 

I did not change another's intended meaning. I showed where I agree to a large degree (minus one word). Thus I gave what would be MY intended meaning to the mind-set mentioned and the point of this thread .

 

Finally you will see that I finished with an acknowledgement to HIS intended meaning. Which means, I understand him. And I have shared my thought so can understand me better (my mindset).

 

This is basic communication and discussion. Everyone has a right to discussion.

 

 

I understand all that. The thing that is when you quote someone, you do not make changes to the wording. That means you are changing the original idea of the initiator which is very misleading causing misunderstanding. It is better off for you to make your own statement. That is where I am getting at. To save time and effort, I think this kind of miscommunication should be avoided as possible. Most of the time I was spending here was to try to be clear of what you are saying. However, it was always one thing leads to another is very time consuming.

Edited January 29, 2013 by ChiDragon

[ChiDragon]

This sounds interesting. I'm curious to see what this is.

 

I am glad to hear that. I was expecting a response like this for a jump start to move forward. Thanks.

[dawei]

The thing that is when you quote someone, you do not make changes to the wording. That means you are changing the original idea of the initiator which is very misleading causing misunderstanding. It is better off for you to make your own statement. That is where I am getting at. To save time and effort, I think this kind of miscommunication should be avoided as possible. Most of the time I was spending here was to try to be clear of what you are saying. However, it was always one thing leads to another is very time consuming.

 

But I learned that technique from you... you have done that plenty of times yourself.

 

If others are truly confused by what I did, I think they'll let me know. For now, I do note that it confused you.

[ChiDragon]

But I learned that technique from you... you have done that plenty of times yourself.

 

If others are truly confused by what I did, I think they'll let me know. For now, I do note that it confused you.

 

It was not a confusion but just disturbing. I believe I always get to the point on some important issues for saving time. Sometimes, I was probing the brain of the counterpart in a special situation. I don't think it was quite the same as in your approach.

Edited January 31, 2013 by ChiDragon

[ChiDragon]

 

Is the Received Version posted in Chinese on the internet? Do you have the link?

 

FYI....

Since you can read the characters, you may copy and paste any character or phrase(s) on google or any search engine to find some good native sources.

 

[takaaki]

 

 

I understand all that. The thing that is when you quote someone, you do not make changes to the wording. That means you are changing the original idea of the initiator which is very misleading causing misunderstanding. It is better off for you to make your own statement. That is where I am getting at. To save time and effort, I think this kind of miscommunication should be avoided as possible. Most of the time I was spending here was to try to be clear of what you are saying. However, it was always one thing leads to another is very time consuming.

 

Dawei seems intent on emphasizing the need for participation from our English-speaking membership at Tao Bums. That is understandable since this website does not belong to a Chinese scholar and is meant as a social meeting place for English-speaking people interested in everything to do with the Tao.

 

But you did start this thread for a special purpose: to study the Received Version of the Tao Te Ching. This thread is only for those interested in what you have to say on the topic. I don't see why Dawei has to set conditions and moderate how you do your thing here in this thread.

 

As for his correcting what I said by striking out the word "Chinese", I would like to emphasize my contention that the Tao Te Ching is essentially Chinese just as the Gita is an Indian Classic. Dawei may disagree with my view that only Chinese literary experts has the special advantage in dealing with Chinese classical works in a way that a mother has that special connection with her own child. If he doesn't believe that a mother is special to her own offspring and vice versa, that's fine. There are some babies who would suck anybody's breast including a cow's jjust to get fed. But there are some babies who only want their own mothers. I hope Dawei will allow us to have our own mother and not just any old cow. This is why I emphasized "Chinese scholars" should attend to the Tao Te Ching.

[dawei]

I think if it is in this section of TTB, then this study can be focused to this Received Text and the Scholars who write it, at the exclusion of english speaking people.

 

What gets lost is where it is the scholars thought vs someone elses. I think it is inevitable that something is getting added to what the book said as the book may not of had the goal to be exhaustive as debunking the variations or common text. I don't yet hear such things and this may be why the west has not taken notice of the book if it appears to be yet another commentary.

[ChiDragon]

I agree with the former. However, I will not make an assumption as such in the latter. All the thoughts, ideas, commentaries were explicitly justified, by the author, beyond any reasonable doubt. The reason that the westerners did not get a hold of the book because it was all written in Chinese; and it is impossible to translate it into another language due to the complexity of the linguistic differences.


@takaaki....
Welcome back.
Thanks for the clarification and your modesty. Anyway, I knew what you meant and what dawei's intent was. It was just an extra step we took in communication but unnecessary.

Edited January 31, 2013 by ChiDragon

[dawei]

I agree with the former. However, I will not make an assumption as such in the latter. All the thoughts, ideas, commentaries were explicitly justified, by the author, beyond any reasonable doubt. The reason that the westerners did not get a hold of the book because it was all written in Chinese; and it is impossible to translate it into another language due to the complexity of the linguistic differences.

 

You made an assumption anyways... but at least that is one we know is not the case. Almost every ancient chinese philosopher is translated as well as the Guodian and MWD texts... Objectively and logically, I would doubt this book is "impossible to translate".

[ChiDragon]

Would you like to give it a try and see how far you get.....???

Edited February 2, 2013 by ChiDragon