Scholastic Study of Chapter One

[ChiDragon]

1. 道可道非, 常道。
2. 名可名非, 常名。

What is wrong with these phrases with the commas at those places. Let me justify for the benefit of the doubt.

Linguistically, they are saying:
1. If Tao can be said "no", then, Tao is eternal.
2. If the name can be named "no", then, the name is eternal.

Does that make any sense at all.....???

[dawei]

I am providing that link so that others can look at variations if they are interested. The link provides it author's explanation. If we translate as "we" see a variation then we are no longer looking at another's example and variation. Not matter how you or I translate it, it will not be what the link is talking about.

 

That would be like us changing the native scholar's text; then we're no longer looking at what the native scholar's wrote.

 

People can decide if they want to look at other variations or not. I'll leave it at that.

[takaaki]

1. 道可道非, 常道。

2. 名可名非, 常名。

 

What is wrong with these phrases with the commas at those places. Let me justify for the benefit of the doubt.

 

Linguistically, they are saying:

1. If Tao can be said "no", then, Tao is eternal.

2. If the name can be named "no", then, the name is eternal.

 

Does that make any sense at all.....???

 

 

道可道非 = If Tao can be said "no" ?

 

How does 非 work here?

[takaaki]

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 grokking it.

 

Riyue comes across as a pretty formidable Chinese guy. He deserves some roast duck.

[ChiDragon]

道可道非 = If Tao can be said "no" ?

 

How does 非 work here?

 

非 is a negative character which negates any thought in conjunction with it.

 

It doesn't work here. I was only translating what it says where the comma dictates. It is not logical and not proper Chinese in the phrase.

[dawei]

道可道非 = If Tao can be said "no" ?

 

How does 非 work here?

 

realize that the link provided in no way suggests this rendering... that is too word for word. The author expresses this as a dynamic interaction...

 

Thus, Riyue has come very close to expressing that author's idea of 道可道非, 常道 /恆道 as 一陰一陽之謂道.

 

For the author, Ke and Fei (可 and 非) are Yang and Yin; Ascent and descent; left and right; You and Wu (有 and 無).

 

Thus, it leads to line 3 and 4:

3. 無，名天地之始。

4. 有，名萬物之母。

 

Once the correspondence exchanges are made, we see:

道可道非, 恆道 - The dynamic interaction of Dao-Ke and Dao-Fe is the eternal Dao [at work]

道陽道陰, 恆道 - The dynamic interaction of Dao-Yang and Dao-Yin is the eternal Dao [at work]

道無道有, 恆道 - The dynamic interaction of Dao-Wu and Dao-You is the eternal Dao [at work]

[takaaki]

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.

 

I can see the difference in punctuation between the Received Version and the Common Version, but the general message of Chapter One has not fundamentally changed. Both versions are like the faces of the same woman with different shades of lipstick and eye-shadow. It's still the same face.

 

Am I wrong?

Edited February 3, 2013 by takaaki

[ChiDragon]

I can see the difference in punctuation between the Received Version and the Common Version, but the general message of Chapter One has not fundamentally changed. Both versions are like the faces of the same woman with different shades of lipstick and eye-shadow. It's still the same face.

 

Am I wrong?

 

There is a big difference, in the meaning on lines 5 and 6, between the two versions. Let's go over it again.

Received Version of Chapter 1

5. 故常無，欲以觀其妙。

6. 常有，欲以觀其徼。

 

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

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

 

These two lines were referring to the states of manifestation of Tao.

 

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

Common Version:

5. 故常無欲，以觀其妙。

6. 常有欲，以觀其徼。

 

5. Always without desire, one would grok its quale.

6. Always with desire, one would observe its boundary.

 

These two lines were referring to the states of desire of a person.

 

Since Chapter One was given an introduction of Tao, it wouldn't make any sense by jumping out of the subject and talk about someone's states of desire. There was no connection there, it was just out of context. Do you see the difference in the outcome, by place the comma in different a position, of the two versions.....???

Edited February 3, 2013 by ChiDragon

[takaaki]

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.

 

If we are to be scholarly rigorous, we need to observe the protocols of scientific inquiry and be clinically exacting. This is to ensure that our undertaking is professional and stays that way. No spin, no quackery.

 

To begin, I would like to examine Line 1.

 

1. 道可道，非常道。

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

 

The above English translation has been accepted in the western world; yet, it doesn't say what the Chinese text says.

The word "tao" is not an English word but anglicized Chinese i.e. made English in form. Correct translation should be complete as follows:

 

1. The Way that can be spoken is not the eternal Way.

 

The above, although still not consistent with the meaning of the Chinese text, is at least in proper English. This correction has significant importance in eliminating a major distortion of the Tao Te Ching by westerners in the English-speaking world.

 

Please comment.

Edited February 3, 2013 by takaaki

[takaaki]

 

There is a big difference, in the meaning on lines 5 and 6, between the two versions. Let's go over it again.

Received Version of Chapter 1

5. 故常無，欲以觀其妙。

6. 常有，欲以觀其徼。

 

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

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

 

These two lines were referring to the states of manifestation of Tao.

 

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

Common Version:

5. 故常無欲，以觀其妙。

6. 常有欲，以觀其徼。

 

5. Always without desire, one would grok its quale.

6. Always with desire, one would observe its boundary.

 

These two lines were referring to the states of desire of a person.

 

Since Chapter One was given an introduction of Tao, it wouldn't make any sense by jumping out of the subject and talk about someone's states of desire. There was no connection there, it was just out of context. Do you see the difference in the outcome, by place the comma in different a position, of the two versions.....???

 

Yes, I do see what you are clarifying. One refers to the states of the Tao while the other refers to states of the person.

 

The Common Version is pointing to desire as the determining factor in seeing the manifested world that hides the mystery behind it. This Version could have Buddhist influence and it makes sense in terms of Buddhist logic, if you accept that.

 

The Received Version is pointing to Tao as the determining factor in causing the manifestation of the world that we perceive.

What is the message here?

[ChiDragon]

If we are to be scholarly rigorous, we need to observe the protocols of scientific inquiry and be clinically exacting. This is to ensure that our undertaking is professional and stays that way. No spin, no quackery.

 

To begin, I would like to examine Line 1.

 

1. 道可道，非常道。

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

 

The above English translation has been accepted in the western world; yet, it doesn't say what the Chinese text says.

The word "tao" is not an English word but anglicized Chinese i.e. made English in form. Correct translation should be complete as follows:

 

1. The Way that can be spoken is not the eternal Way.

 

The above, although still not consistent with the meaning of the Chinese text, is at least in proper English. This correction has significant importance in eliminating a major distortion of the Tao Te Ching by westerners in the English-speaking world.

 

Please comment.

 

If we have to translate "Tao" as "Way" without reading further down the line in the TTC, we are jumping the gun too soon. Later along in other chapters, "Tao" was fined by LaoTze with multi-definition. "Way" may only fits one of the definitions. You will see that "Way" may not fit all those definitions as you reading along the TTC. Besides, The first "Tao" in Chapter One is a proper noun. Sometimes, for consistency, a proper noun does not need to be translated. In the second character, 'tao' is a verb, thus it may be translated as 'spoken'.

 

PS....

Can "takaaki" be translated.....??? If the answer is no, for the same token, 'Tao' may not be translated neither. The reason we can translate the character 道 because it has linguistic meanings. If it is a pure proper noun with no other meanings, then, people do not have the option to think otherwise.

Edited February 3, 2013 by ChiDragon

[ChiDragon]

Yes, I do see what you are clarifying. One refers to the states of the Tao while the other refers to states of the person.

 

The Common Version is pointing to desire as the determining factor in seeing the manifested world that hides the mystery behind it. This Version could have Buddhist influence and it makes sense in terms of Buddhist logic, if you accept that.

 

The Received Version is pointing to Tao as the determining factor in causing the manifestation of the world that we perceive.

What is the message here?

 

In both versions, the observation was pointing to Tao other than the world. It is because Chapter One is all about Tao but not the world.

 

Common Version:

5. 故常無欲，以觀其妙。

6. 常有欲，以觀其徼。

 

5. Always without desire, one would grok its quale.

6. Always with desire, one would observe its boundary.

 

To be more explicit, I can rephrase lines 5 and 6 for clarity.

5. Always without desire, one would grok Tao's quale.

6. Always with desire, one would observe Tao's boundary.

 

The illogical notion here lies on the state of desire. The question is do we need to be in a different state of mind to observe Tao's quale or boundary....??? Can we observe Tao at any time without depending on the state of desire....???

 

 

Received Version of Chapter 1

5. 故常無，欲以觀其妙。

6. 常有，欲以觀其徼。

 

I do the same by rephrasing lines 5 and 6.

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

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

 

Over here, we observe Tao's quale and boundary under two conditions.

1. When Tao was in an invisible state, we observe Tao's intangible characteristic or quale.

2. When Tao is in a manifested state, we observe Tao's limitation or boundary.

Edited February 4, 2013 by ChiDragon

[dawei]

One thing appears to be overlooked: The state of desires is not just a state of emotions but whether the block is uncarved or not. Thus, from a microcosm point of view, the state of desires of the person IS the same as the state of manifestation of Tao.

 

If one sticks with the MWD text then desires seems to work best within its original line. If one goes with the comma after Wu and You, then I see the replacement to boundary seems better.

 

MWD-A: 6. 恆有欲也以觀其所噭
HSG: 6. 常有欲，以觀其徼。

Rec : 6. 常有，欲以觀其徼

[dawei]

If we are to be scholarly rigorous, we need to observe the protocols of scientific inquiry and be clinically exacting. This is to ensure that our undertaking is professional and stays that way. No spin, no quackery.

 

To begin, I would like to examine Line 1.

 

1. 道可道，非常道。

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

 

The above English translation has been accepted in the western world; yet, it doesn't say what the Chinese text says.

The word "tao" is not an English word but anglicized Chinese i.e. made English in form. Correct translation should be complete as follows:

 

1. The Way that can be spoken is not the eternal Way.

 

The above, although still not consistent with the meaning of the Chinese text, is at least in proper English. This correction has significant importance in eliminating a major distortion of the Tao Te Ching by westerners in the English-speaking world.

 

Please comment.

 

What seems interesting to note is that among 20 asian translations in english, they all choose not to translate Dao at all.

 

This is one of the chapters where "Way" does seem to work well enough to translate.

[ChiDragon]

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。
5. 故常無，欲以觀其妙。
6. 常有，欲以觀其徼。

According to my native reference in page 三九六(396) .
王安石(Wang An shi), in the Tang Dynasty, was the first scholar who reads 無 and 有, followed by a comma, as shown in Lines 3, 4, 5 and 6.

http://www.doc88.com...9425151684.html

Here is a very good native explanation about 道，無 and 有 for Chapter One:

http://www.guoxue.com/lwtj/content/liujiarun_lzc1.htm

 

Edited February 6, 2013 by ChiDragon

[dawei]

I can't view your doc88 link. Is that the native scholar comments or the actual Wang An shi text?

 

The reason I ask is because Chan also references the Wang An Shi text for the comma placement for lines 5 & 6, but for 3 & 4, he notes another as starting that comma placement.

[ChiDragon]

I can't view your doc88 link. Is that the native scholar comments or the actual Wang An shi text?

 

The reason I ask is because Chan also references the Wang An Shi text for the comma placement for lines 5 & 6, but for 3 & 4, he notes another as starting that comma placement.

 

Yes, that is the reference of Wang As Shi(王安石).

[takaaki]

What seems interesting to note is that among 20 asian translations in english, they all choose not to translate Dao at all.

 

The reason for not translating Dao is because it has appeal as an alternative for western atheists. John Wu was a Catholic and to him, Dao, makes a nice Chinese name for God.

[dawei]

The reason for not translating Dao is because it has appeal as an alternative for western atheists. John Wu was a Catholic and to him, Dao, makes a nice Chinese name for God.

 

I am not going to categorically disagree but are Yin and Yang untranslated in the name of God too? This may be an easy explanation for a few but it won't explain everyone.

 

How about scholars like Gu Zhengkun (辜正坤) from Bejing.

 

http://www.east-west-dichotomy.com/gu-zhengkun-family-nation-world/

 

Maybe he has spent too much time studying both cultures for his own good (or bad translation)?

 

In any case... as you had recommended "Way", there are plenty in the east and west who choose to do that too.

[ChiDragon]

How about scholars like Gu Zhengkun (辜正坤) from Bejing.

 

Maybe he has spent too much time studying both cultures for his own good (or bad translation)?

 

In any case... as you had recommended "Way", there are plenty in the east and west who choose to do that too.

 

I have the book of Gu Zhengkun (辜正坤). His is a professor in the English department at the University of Beijing. His explanation about the philosophy of LaoTze in Chinese was perfect. Somehow, his translation of the Tao Te Ching into English was not quite satisfactory. He was using Chinese-English other than English-English.

[takaaki]

ChiDragon,

 

Chapter 1 seems to me to be an appropriate opening Chapter to the Tao Te Ching.

 

In this Chapter, 道 does seem to be used as a proper noun; and because of this, you said that 道 may not be translated as "Way". By making it a proper noun, 道 takes on a form of something mystical; especially if it cannot be either defined or perceived.

 

So, I would like to question the basis of argument, if any, for treating 道 as a proper noun. Is there any undeniable evidence of 道 coming across as a proper noun anywhere in the 81 Chapters of this Classic?

 

The idea of a mysticism associated with the Tao Te Ching doesn't appeal to me because it is inconsistent with traditional Chinese scholarship. I regard the Tao Te Ching as a scholarly work of practical relevance as all Chinese classics truly are. Treating 道 as a proper noun is giving the breath of life to a pictograph, a linguistic symbol. Is this a wise thing to do?

[dynamictao]

Thank to ChiDragon.

It is interesting to find out that 刘家润 (China) comes to the same conclusion about the parsing of Wu and Yu, and, Heng Wu and Heng Yu, in Chapter 1. I have found this is the only way to find the principle of Tao and the logic used by Lao-tzu.

When I publish my paper, I did not know this reference [http://www.guoxue.com/lwtj/content/liujiarun_lzc1.htm], so I did not use it as reference. Now I have one less issue to justify.

He has:

“道，可道，非常道；名，可名，非常名。无，名天地之始；有，名万物之母。常无，欲以观众其妙；常有，欲以观其徼。此二者同，出而异名。同，谓之玄。玄之又玄，众妙之门。”

My whole model depends on such views on Wu and Yu, and Heng Wu and Heng Yu.

[ChiDragon]

ChiDragon,

 

Chapter 1 seems to me to be an appropriate opening Chapter to the Tao Te Ching.

 

In this Chapter, 道 does seem to be used as a proper noun; and because of this, you said that 道 may not be translated as "Way". By making it a proper noun, 道 takes on a form of something mystical; especially if it cannot be either defined or perceived.

 

So, I would like to question the basis of argument, if any, for treating 道 as a proper noun. Is there any undeniable evidence of 道 coming across as a proper noun anywhere in the 81 Chapters of this Classic?

 

The idea of a mysticism associated with the Tao Te Ching doesn't appeal to me because it is inconsistent with traditional Chinese scholarship. I regard the Tao Te Ching as a scholarly work of practical relevance as all Chinese classics truly are. Treating 道 as a proper noun is giving the breath of life to a pictograph, a linguistic symbol. Is this a wise thing to do?

 

Yes, there are many undeniable evidence of 道 coming across as a proper noun anywhere in the 81 Chapters of this Classic. I'll start a new thread to go over the chapters where 道 was shown as a proper noun for your curiosity.

 

At first, before I open up the Tao Te Ching, I have no idea what 道 was all about until I've read the annotions and connotation in Chapter One. As you've said, it is inconsistent with traditional Chinese scholarship because it is a piece of a standing alone document written by a Wise man called Lao Tze. Your question was ".....Is this a wise thing to do....???" With LoaTze's incomparable wisdom, indeed, I think he had done such a wise thing.

 

 

 

Edited February 12, 2013 by ChiDragon

[takaaki]

Yes, there are many undeniable evidence of 道 coming across as a proper noun anywhere in the 81 Chapters of this Classic. I'll start a new thread to go over the chapters where 道 was shown as a proper noun for your curiosity.

 

You truly are devoted to your vocation as a teacher. I am indeed fortunate.

 

 

At first, before I open up the Tao Te Ching, I have no idea what 道 was all about until I've read the annotions and connotation in Chapter One. As you've said, it is inconsistent with traditional Chinese scholarship because it is a piece of a standing alone document written by a Wise man called Lao Tze. Your question was ".....Is this a wise thing to do....???" With LoaTze's incomparable wisdom, indeed, I think he had done such a wise thing.

 

I hope you will be patient with me in the study of the Tao Te Ching. My approach is different and probably influenced by family elders. They had always told me that all book learnings, especially the Chinese classics, must have practical relevance. To that end, self-mastery and statecraft were their only areas of focus. My western education drummed into me the same attitude towards learning: execution. The difference between being a success in life and a loser is the ability to make economically-viable ideas work.

 

This is why I would rather see 道 as a Way (of action) than as a proper noun, a name for a mystical thing. In this regard, I hope you will give me some leeway in interpreting the meaning of the verses.

[dawei]

This is why I would rather see 道 as a Way (of action) than as a proper noun, a name for a mystical thing.

 

I view it as multi-layer meaning and thus both/and; not either/or. I think as Chi mentioned somewhere; one translation for a word may not work in every single chapter.