Scholastic Study of Chapter One

[ChiDragon]

Received Version of Chapter 1
1. 道可道，非常道。
2. 名可名，非常名。
3. 無，名天地之始。
4. 有，名萬物之母。
5. 故常無，欲以觀其妙。
6. 常有，欲以觀其徼。
7. 此兩者同出而異名，
8. 同謂之玄。玄之又玄，
9. 眾妙之門。

Revised as of 2/27/12
1. Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao.
2. A name that can be named is not an eternal name.

3. Invisible, it was named as the origin of heaven and earth.
4. Visible, it was named as the mother of all things.

5. Hence, when Tao is always invisible, one would grok its quale.
6. When Tao is always visible, one would observe its boundary.

7. These two come from one origin but differ in name,
8. Both are regarded as unfathomable; the most occult and profound;
9. The gate of all changes.

Edited January 29, 2013 by ChiDragon

[ChiDragon]

Common Version of Chapter 1
1. 道可道，非常道。
2. 名可名，非常名。
3. 無名，天地之始。
4. 有名，萬物之母。
5. 故常無欲，以觀其妙。
6. 常有欲，以觀其徼。
7. 此兩者同出而異名，
8. 同謂之玄。玄之又玄，
9. 眾妙之門。

The commas in lines 3, 4, 5 and 6 has been moved one place to the right. This common version was used by many to do the translation.

3. 無名，天地之始。
3. Having no name, it is the beginning of Heaven and Earth.

4. 有名，萬物之母。
4. Having a name, it is the mother of all tings.

5. 故常無欲，以觀其妙。
5. Always without desire, one would grok its quale.

6. 常有欲，以觀其徼。
6. Always with desire, one would observe its boundary.


With the comma in different a place, do you see the difference in the translation between the Received and Common Versions....???

As a scholastic approach, the first thing to do is to place the comma in their proper place. That will give the translator a general idea about the context within perspective to see the overall picture of a Chapter.

Edited January 29, 2013 by ChiDragon

[dawei]

I would think the scholar would seek to understand the concepts in the chapter and book as a whole first... then use that understanding to see how the flow of a sentence reads towards conveying what meaning. Then apply commas to drive home the point as commas are only the last step in clarifying to others. The scholar himself understands it.

 

So... it would be good to hear what is their justification for the comma placement. I have seen commas put in more variations then the two shown but they justify in lengthy explanation why.

 

So, let the scholarly explanation and justification begin... And BTW: I am not against some of the comma placements shown.

[ChiDragon]

Scholastic analysis for:
Received Version of Chapter 1.
3. 無，名天地之始。
3. Invisible, it was named as the origin of heaven and earth.
4. 有，名萬物之母。
4. Visible, it was named as the mother of all things.

7. 此兩者同出而異名
7. These two come from one origin but differ in name,

The key to draw to a conclusion is based the logic in line 7. It says these "two" from one origin but differ in name.

The two differ in name were referred to the "無" and "有", "Invisible" and "Visible", the two name given to Tao in two different states. The two states were:
1. The beginning(origin) of heaven and earth, Invisible, Tao was in an unmanifested state.
2. As the mother of all things, Visible, Tao was in a manifested state.

The origin was referred as "Tao".

Everything seems to be felt in place and the logic flows.


PS....
Please keep in mind from a scholastic point of view, Lao Tze hasn't teaching any of his philosophies in Chapter One. Indeed, he was only given an introduction of Tao.

Edited January 29, 2013 by ChiDragon

[Reed]

With the comma in different a place, do you see the difference in the translation between the Received and Common Versions....???

 

With the common version we seem to be getting this kind of picture of reality:

 

 

 

2.1 Predicate dualism

 

Predicate dualism is the theory that psychological or mentalistic predicates are (a) essential for a full description of the world and are not reducible to physicalistic predicates. For a mental predicate to be reducible, there would be bridging laws connecting types of psychological states to types of physical ones in such a way that the use of the mental predicate carried no information that could not be expressed without it. An example of what we believe to be a true type reduction outside psychology is the case of water, where water is always H₂O: something is water if and only if it is H₂O. If one were to replace the word ‘water’ by ‘H₂O’, it is plausible to say that one could convey all the same information. But the terms in many of the special sciences (that is, any science except physics itself) are not reducible in this way. Not every hurricane or every infectious disease, let alone every devaluation of the currency or every coup d'etat has the same constitutive structure. These states are defined more by what they do than by their composition or structure. Their names are classified as functional terms rather than natural kind terms. It goes with this that such kinds of state are multiply realizable; that is, they may be constituted by different kinds of physical structures under different circumstances. Because of this, unlike in the case of water and H₂O, one could not replace these terms by some more basic physical description and still convey the same information. There is no particular description, using the language of physics or chemistry, that would do the work of the word ‘hurricane’, in the way that ‘H₂O’ would do the work of ‘water’. It is widely agreed that many, if not all, psychological states are similarly irreducible, and so psychological predicates are not reducible to physical descriptions and one has predicate dualism. (The classic source for irreducibility in the special sciences in general is Fodor (1974), and for irreducibility in the philosophy of mind, Davidson (1971).)

 

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dualism/#PreDua

 

We can experience the Tao just with our five standard senses (and in fact, there isn't anything else which isn't accessible by them) and the division in lines three and four occurs once we start conceptualising things and introducing language etc [ie Predicate dualism]

 

This worldview would be compatible with monistic materialistism.

 

-----------

 

With the received version we seem to be getting this kind of picture of reality:

 

 

 

2.2 Property Dualism

 

Whereas predicate dualism says that there are two essentially different kinds of predicates in our language, property dualism says that there are two essentially different kinds of property out in the world. Property dualism can be seen as a step stronger than predicate dualism. Although the predicate ‘hurricane’ is not equivalent to any single description using the language of physics, we believe that each individual hurricane is nothing but a collection of physical atoms behaving in a certain way: one need have no more than the physical atoms, with their normal physical properties, following normal physical laws, for there to be a hurricane. One might say that we need more than the language of physics to describe and explain the weather, but we do not need more than its ontology. There is token identity between each individual hurricane and a mass of atoms, even if there is no type identity between hurricanes as kinds and some particular structure of atoms as a kind. Genuine property dualism occurs when, even at the individual level, the ontology of physics is not sufficient to constitute what is there. The irreducible language is not just another way of describing what there is, it requires that there be something more there than was allowed for in the initial ontology. Until the early part of the twentieth century, it was common to think that biological phenomena (‘life’) required property dualism (an irreducible ‘vital force’), but nowadays the special physical sciences other than psychology are generally thought to involve only predicate dualism. In the case of mind, property dualism is defended by those who argue that the qualitative nature of consciousness is not merely another way of categorizing states of the brain or of behaviour, but a genuinely emergent phenomenon.

 

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dualism/#ProDua

 

Assuming visible means the five standard senses, we have room in this worldview for things like spirits and chi etc and senses beyond the standard five e.g. claireaudience/clairvoyance? ie there is more to the Tao than can be accessed by the five standard senses and it's not just a matter of introducing language and concepts which causes a division in lines three and four [ie property dualism]

 

---------

 

I know we're not meant to be saying things like philosophical and religious Daoism but the common version seems more compatible with 'philosophical Daoism' and the received version seems more compatible with 'religious Daoism'.

Edited January 29, 2013 by Reed

[ChiDragon]

Scholastic analysis for:
Common Version of Chapter 1.
3. 無名，天地之始。
3. Having no name, it is the beginning of Heaven and Earth.

4. 有名，萬物之母。
4. Having a name, it is the mother of all tings.

7. 此兩者同出而異名
7. These two come from one origin but differ in name,

For the same token, where are the "two" come from one origin....??? I cannot find them in lines 3 and 4 as I would have found in the Received Version.

[ChiDragon]

Reed....
Can you just look at Chapter One alone by itself without any outside influence.....??? You are confusing yourself from what you have learned in the past. Everything was defined in the chapter with not assumptions. What I am try to do is to avoid the same mistake that you are making. As I was saying before, the TTC is a piece of stand alone document. It does not need any outside influence for its interpretation. However, there are exceptions when it was written in metaphors.

BTW You have jumped the gun before I was finish with my analysis....!!!


Reed: "Assuming visible means the five standard senses"
4. Visible, it(Tao) was named as the mother of all things.

It was clear that line 4 was indicating the "Visible" is Tao, not the five senses as you'd assumed.

Please keep in mind from a scholastic point of view, Lao Tze hasn't teaching any of his philosophies in Chapter One. Indeed, he was only given an introduction of Tao.

Edited January 29, 2013 by ChiDragon

[Reed]

Reed....

Can you just look at Chapter One alone by itself without any outside influence.....??? You are confusing yourself from what you learned in the past.

 

Okay, I will give it a go. I know it doesn't quite fit what I said but I'm trying to relate to what I know so I can understand it better.

 

Everything was defined in the chapter with not assumptions. What I am try to do is to avoid the same mistake that you are making. As I was saying before, the TTC is a piece of stand alone document. It does not need any outside influence for its interpretation. However, there are exceptions when it was written in metaphors.

 

BTW You have jumped the gun before I was finish with my analysis....!!!

 

sorry! I'll wait till you finish up.

 

 

 

Reed: "Assuming visible means the five standard senses"

4. Visible, it(Tao) was named as the mother of all things.

 

It was clear that line 4 was indicating the "Visible" is Tao, not the five senses as you'd assumed.

 

I meant here: 4. Visible (ie. observable by the five standard senses), it(Tao) was named as the mother of all things.

 

or maybe I've misunderstood what you're saying? eta: never mind, I've just seen your new post further up.

Edited January 29, 2013 by Reed

[dawei]

Scholastic analysis for:

Common Version of Chapter 1.

3. 無名，天地之始。

3. Having no name, it is the beginning of Heaven and Earth.

 

4. 有名，萬物之母。

4. Having a name, it is the mother of all tings.

 

7. 此兩者同出而異名

7. These two come from one origin but differ in name,

 

For the same token, where are the "two" come from one origin....??? I cannot find them in lines 3 and 4 as I would have found in the Received Version.

 

I don't think that is objective and scholarly enough... The TWO are obviously there in 3 and 4:

 

Wu Ming and You Ming.

 

You need to provide better justification than "where are the two?".

 

I also take the lines in this meaning as the Received Text suggests but we are not doing due diligence if we can't even see what the common text shows and what most people translate based upon. We can't shirk away from dealing with what the common text also plainly would support ('two').

 

The common text might also suggest their support based on the fact that Ming is in line 2 of the text... And Line 2 is tied to line 1... so there is continuity... Honestly speaking, from a scholarly point of view, that is good support...

[ChiDragon]

I don't think that is objective and scholarly enough... The TWO are obviously there in 3 and 4:

 

Wu Ming and You Ming.

 

You need to provide better justification than "where are the two?".

 

Are you suggesting that "Wu Ming" and "You Ming" as "These two come from one origin but differ in name".....???

 

 

Edited January 30, 2013 by ChiDragon

[ChiDragon]

A. I also take the lines in this meaning as the Received Text suggests but we are not doing due diligence if we can't even see what the common text shows and what most people translate based upon. We can't shirk away from dealing with what the common text also plainly would support ('two').

 

B. The common text might also suggest their support based on the fact that Ming is in line 2 of the text... And Line 2 is tied to line 1... so there is continuity... Honestly speaking, from a scholarly point of view, that is good support...

 

A. Sorry, I don't understand.

 

B. How does line 2 tied to line 1 shown that there is continuity.....???

1. 道可道，非常道。

2. 名可名，非常名。

 

 

Edited January 30, 2013 by ChiDragon

[dawei]

I am not suggesting it; the text suggests it. AND it is the basis for the common text view.

 

Later in lines 5 (common text) the formula for NAMES is repeated with DESIRES: Wu Yu and You Yu.

 

Thus, the argument can be made that regardless of what word you put after Wu and You... it is the same comparison formula of 'two'... what the text is really comparing is states of Wu and You in the end... Ergo... the comma movement to the left most accurately reflects the 'two'.

 

The same reductionist approach can be applied to Lines 1 and 2 for it's comma placement over say another comma placement.

 

Ok.. so there... I made the comparative argument for why the Received Text is getting to the core comparison of the 'two'.

 

It is quite possible that the native scholars do not really compare and prove why they do what they do. Do they justify why in comparison to the common view?

[dawei]

 

A. Sorry, I don't understand.

 

B. How does line 2 tied to line 1 shown that there is continuity.....???

1. 道可道，非常道。

2. 名可名，非常名。

 

 

 

A. I answer that in the previous post... meaning: There must be a reason the native scholar choose to change the common text. It is not enough to just say this is our logic. One should at least say why that is better than another's logic. But maybe that was not the native scholars approach and I'll be open to accept whatever they choose to explain or not.

 

B. Parallelism, structure and rhythm is an important feature. But this argument is valid for the Received Text too... so they both can appeal to it. I was simply stating that the common text has a valid idea behind it... although, as I said, I actually don't agree with it.

[ChiDragon]

It is quite possible that the native scholars do not really compare and prove why they do what they do. Do they justify why in comparison to the common view?

 

 

I thought line 7 was a good justification made by the native scholars. As a matter of fact, it was a consensus among the native knowledgeable scholars.

 

 

I would like to hear the response from takaaki.....!!!

Edited January 30, 2013 by ChiDragon

[dawei]

1. 道可道，非常道。
2. 名可名，非常名。

 

 

1. 道,可道，非常道。
2. 名,可名，非常名。

 

1. 道可道非, 常道。
2. 名可名非, 常名。

 

If we compare possible variations on lines 1 and 2:

 

The first set is poetically balanced. It is hard to improve on its simplicity.

 

The second one has some interesting tie to lines 3 and 4 by setting off Dao, Wu, and You with a comma.

 

The third set is an interesting argument I read which is compelling but very unorthodox. Nonetheless, it shows that people can find strong justification if their theory is supported.

 

I am not sure we really change the meaning of the opening lines enough to push a strong justification but I do think the basic concepts should be known.

 

3. 無，名天地之始。
4. 有，名萬物之母。

[dawei]

 

 

I thought line 7 was a good justification made by the native scholars. As a matter of fact, it was a consensus among the native knowledgeable scholars.

 

 

I would like to hear the response from takaaki.....!!!

 

I don't disagree with you... I am just saying that the Common Text has the same justification... but the "two" are simply different due to the punctuation. I am a stickler for details.

 

I think your doing good so far. We agree much more than it may appear.... so far...

 

I want to be fair here and I want to hear what the native scholar says. If there is general commentary or whatever. And you can keep plugging away with concepts and explanations.

[ChiDragon]

1. 道可道，非常道。

2. 名可名，非常名。

 

1. 道,可道，非常道。

2. 名,可名，非常名。

 

1. 道可道非, 常道。

2. 名可名非, 常名。

 

If we compare possible variations on lines 1 and 2:

 

The first set is poetically balanced. It is hard to improve on its simplicity.

 

The second one has some interesting tie to lines 3 and 4 by setting off Dao, Wu, and You with a comma.

 

The third set is an interesting argument I read which is compelling but very unorthodox. Nonetheless, it shows that people can find strong justification if their theory is supported.

 

I am not sure we really change the meaning of the opening lines enough to push a strong justification but I do think the basic concepts should be known.

 

3. 無，名天地之始。

4. 有，名萬物之母。

 

Set One

1. 道可道，非常道。

2. 名可名，非常名。

 

Set Two

1. 道,可道，非常道。

2. 名,可名，非常名。

 

Linguistically, the second set with the additional comma did not effect the logic of the first set.

 

 

****************************************************************************************************

Received Version:

The 名 in lines 3 ans 4 was used as a verb in the Received Version.

3. 無，名天地之始。

4. 有，名萬物之母。

 

Common Version:

The 名 was compound with 無 and 有 to make it as part of the adjective. Thus 無名 and 有名 are adjectives in the Common Version.

3. 無名，天地之始。

4. 有名，萬物之母。

 

 

*****************************************************************************************************

This one is not acceptable as proper Chinese because it doesn't make sense. As a scholar in the comprehension of Chinese, I will have to disqualified you on this one.

1. 道可道非, 常道。

2. 名可名非, 常名。

Sorry, when it comes to any scholastic errors, I will have no mercy but to point them out....!!!

 

Edited January 30, 2013 by ChiDragon

[dawei]

I personally like the second set as it represents to me 'singularity arises in multiplicity'. But I know this is not what the native scholars had in mind.

 

I accept the first set appears the most accurate and logical.

 

 

 

This one is not acceptable as proper Chinese because it doesn't make sense. As a scholar in the comprehension of Chinese, I will have to disqualified you on this one.

1. 道可道非, 常道。
2. 名可名非, 常名。

Sorry, when it comes to any scholastic errors, I will have no mercy but to point them out....!!!

 

You only claim proper chinese... but if this is ancient chinese without punctuation then we have to be careful to play a trump card of 'proper chinese'... and you didn't ask for what was their justification; only stated it is in error. This is not scholarly like. One should at least ask if there is any justification and then they can decide for themself...

 

http://taichi-sayings.blogspot.com/2010/07/blog-post.html

 

I don't want side track the topic with this... others can read it for themself and come to their own conclusions or decisions. I only want to point out that variations exist and justifications are provided. Make your own judgement in the end.

 

 

Thanks for keeping this on track! moving on...

[ChiDragon]

" But I know this is not what the native scholars had in mind. "

Is that a fact....???

"You only claim proper chinese... but if this is ancient chinese without punctuation then we have to be careful to play a trump card of 'proper chinese'... and you didn't ask for what was their justification; only stated it is in error. This is not scholarly like. One should at least ask if there is any justification and then they can decide for themself..."

Sorry, very poor reasoning.

One must has the cultural experience and it takes more comprehension to grok all that. Sometimes, it hard to put it in words. Sorry, I'm being to harsh on you.....peace.

Edited January 30, 2013 by ChiDragon

[dawei]

" But I know this is not what the native scholars had in mind. "

 

Is that a fact....???

 

Oh... they considered this?

 

Set Two

1. 道,可道，非常道。

2. 名,可名，非常名。

 

Very cool... I would like to hear what the native scholars said beyond just " the second set with the additional comma did not effect the logic of the first set." Or is that all they said?

 

 

 

"You only claim proper chinese... but if this is ancient chinese without punctuation then we have to be careful to play a trump card of 'proper chinese'... and you didn't ask for what was their justification; only stated it is in error. This is not scholarly like. One should at least ask if there is any justification and then they can decide for themself..."

 

Sorry, very poor reasoning.

 

One must has the cultural experience and it takes more comprehension to grok all that. Sometimes, it hard to put it in words. Sorry, I'm being to harsh on you.....peace.

 

Rejection of another idea in a flippant manner is not being harsh, it is simply not be thorough. I don't think we can appeal to culture experience for flippancy... or maybe we can. Ok. Let's accept that idea and move on...

[ChiDragon]

Oh... they considered this?

 

Set Two

1. 道,可道，非常道。

2. 名,可名，非常名。

 

Very cool... I would like to hear what the native scholars said beyond just " the second set with the additional comma did not effect the logic of the first set." Or is that all they said?

 

 

 

 

Rejection of another idea in a flippant manner is not being harsh, it is simply not be thorough. I don't think we can appeal to culture experience for flippancy... or maybe we can. Ok. Let's accept that idea and move on...

 

oh! dawei....

 

Based on your comments, it only reveals your level of comprehension. I'll repeat, it is a matter of comprehension. Now, we are getting to a point it is either you know it or you don't. There is no argument about it. If you don't see that there is no difference in sets One and Two, then, I don't really know what to tell you.

Edited January 30, 2013 by ChiDragon

[dawei]

 

oh! dawei....

 

Based on your comments, it only reveals your level of comprehension. I'll repeat, it is a matter of comprehension. Now, we are getting to a point it is either you know it or you don't. There is no argument about it. If you don't see that there is no difference in sets One and Two, then, I don't really know what to tell you.

 

I thought this was about you sharing what the Native Scholars said in this book... So I am trying to extract some understanding of what they said about the chapter.

 

Just share what they said. If they did not compare such punctuation differences, then just say so. If they ignored other variations, then just say so. I am asking what THEY SAID about such things.

 

Maybe you need to prefix what is from the native scholars [NS] and ChiDragon [CD].

 

You just need to tell us what is from [NS] book... if you add your own personal comments, then it is [CD] talking...

[Riyue]

Received Version of Chapter 1

1. 道可道，非常道。

2. 名可名，非常名。

3. 無，名天地之始。

4. 有，名萬物之母。

5. 故常無，欲以觀其妙。

6. 常有，欲以觀其徼。

7. 此兩者同出而異名，

8. 同謂之玄。玄之又玄，

9. 眾妙之門。

 

Revised as of 2/27/12

1. Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao.

2. A name that can be named is not an eternal name.

 

3. Invisible, it was named as the origin of heaven and earth.

4. Visible, it was named as the mother of all things.

 

5. Hence, when Tao is always invisible, one would grok its quale.

6. When Tao is always visible, one would observe its boundary.

 

7. These two come from one origin but differ in name,

8. Both are regarded as unfathomable; the most occult and profound;

9. The gate of all changes.

---

i like this reading of 無 and 有...

i am missing the dynamical interaction in dao... between 有 and 無

which is the fundament for understanding of daodejing imo... - ... the complementing of yin and yang....

一陰一陽之謂道 yin-yang-one-interaction : this is the fundament ... the way dao expresses itself.

one can understand it using the explanations of shuowenjiezi for 非, 韋, 恆....

imo...

--

非 韋也從飛(下)翅取其相背也凡非之屬皆從非

韋 相背也從舛囗聲獸皮之韋可以束物枉戾相韋背故借以為皮韋凡韋之屬皆從韋

恆 常也從心舟在二之閒(上下)心以舟施恆也

---

i am missing the understanding of 玄 being explained in ddj 1

玄之又

namely: by seeing the dynamical interaction between 有 and 無

thus the gate for 妙 opens:

玄眾妙之門:

有無相生

玄 - the great experience of life...

the activity of 蠶繭 silkworm-cocoon

[ChiDragon]

---

i like this reading of 無 and 有...

i am missing the dynamical interaction in dao... between 有 and 無

which is the fundament for understanding of daodejing imo... - ... the complementing of yin and yang....

一陰一陽之謂道 yin-yang-one-interaction : this is the fundament ... the way dao expresses itself.

one can understand it using the explanations of shuowenjiezi for 非, 韋, 恆....

imo...

--

 

Yes, it was a clever way of LaoTze to introduce 無 and 有 by showing the duality for the different state of manifestation of Tao. Chapter One tells a lot if one can read it scholarly.

 

"he complementing of yin and yang....一陰一陽之謂道 yin-yang-one-interaction"

That was the hidden message in Chapter One for someone to grok it.

Edited February 1, 2013 by ChiDragon

[ChiDragon]

I personally like the second set as it represents to me 'singularity arises in multiplicity'. But I know this is not what the native scholars had in mind.

 

I accept the first set appears the most accurate and logical.

 

You only claim proper chinese... but if this is ancient chinese without punctuation then we have to be careful to play a trump card of 'proper chinese'... and you didn't ask for what was their justification; only stated it is in error. This is not scholarly like. One should at least ask if there is any justification and then they can decide for themself...

 

http://taichi-sayings.blogspot.com/2010/07/blog-post.html

 

I don't want side track the topic with this... others can read it for themself and come to their own conclusions or decisions. I only want to point out that variations exist and justifications are provided. Make your own judgement in the end.

 

1. 道可道非, 常道。

2. 名可名非, 常名。

 

If you think these two line make sense, then, you need to translate into English for me to see what do you mean and how do you mean. If you agree to do it scholarly, then, you must explain it yourself instead relying on others to do the justification for you. BTW I had specified that before, The Tao Te Ching is a piece pf stand alone document. Therefore, everything must be used within the Tao Te Ching for explanation. If you bring something from the outside of the TTC, then you are just bringing contaminants to the TTC. Unless it was really pertinent to the case. Otherwise, it was not very scholastic.

 

PS....

No one need to ask for justification of anything. It is up to you to do the justification because it is your presentation. If you don't give a good reason to begin with, then no one is interested.

Edited January 30, 2013 by ChiDragon