Scholastic Study of Chapter One

[三江源]

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.

 

 

My sense is that this is a neat little idea but off the mark.

 

Is this an idea that has an academic tradition behind it or is it your own idea, takaaki?

[三江源]

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

 

 

 

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.

Surely this is a very subjective way to translate... is this a subjective interpretation thread, or a scholarly thread, just to be clear?

 

Or are the two inevitably melded?

[ChiDragon]

FYI........
It is/will be a scholarly thread without further interruption. Have we make any derogatory remarks to offend anyone or you since post #46.

May I ask kindly please do not attempt to derail this thread. BTW I do not wish to dedicate all my time in defending the thread.

Edited February 12, 2013 by ChiDragon

[ChiDragon]

Surely this is a very subjective way to translate...

 

Could you be more subjective than that...??? I will disregard this unprovoked comment.

 

 

Please respect the wisdom of the section.

"Chinese language forum where a community of Daoists talk to each other and learn from each other, resulting in a new body of knowledge that is connected to but not limited by the old traditions."

Edited February 12, 2013 by ChiDragon

[三江源]

I am sorry my queries are so unwelcome.

 

It might be of benefit for you to be reminded that when those that help moderate this board post as moderators, they write in blue and sign from mod team.

 

There is no one here who only posts as a moderator, so you must look out for the blue writing and the signature, in order to ascertain what is a moderator post.

[ChiDragon]

My apologies. It was a little too hasty on my part......

Edited February 12, 2013 by ChiDragon

[Harmonious Emptiness]

SNIP

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。”

SNIP

 

Thanks for sharing your thoughts and research here dynamictao. It's great to see some additional scholarly input.

 

 

For a writing like DDJ Chapter One, with such an economy/sparseness of words, each one rich with meaning, it feels like looking at a talisman, where each symbol takes one to the depth of it's meaning.

 

From this perspective, 可道 seems like it might even hold a meaning about kě, using the same grammatical rule that 無極 Wu Ji (Emptiness to the Ultimate) follows where the adjective word/function comes after the noun.

 

Could it be possible that kě dào implies "可permission/ability (comes from Dao) 道?"

 

or

 

道，可道，非常道；名，可名，非常名

Dao, things are enabled by Dao, but there is no constant Dao; Names, things are enabled by names, but there is no true name.

[dynamictao]

From this perspective, 可道 seems like it might even hold a meaning about kě, using the same grammatical rule that 無極 Wu Ji (Emptiness to the Ultimate) follows where the adjective word/function comes after the noun.

 

Could it be possible that kě dào implies "可permission/ability (comes from Dao) 道?"

 

or

 

道，可道，非常道；名，可名，非常名

Dao, things are enabled by Dao, but there is no constant Dao; Names, things are enabled by names, but there is no true name.

Of course, your interpretation makes sense and does reflect the principle (language cannot describe the reality itself.)

I enjoy all different ways of interpreting Chapter 1. This has been done for a long time (thousands of years).

Unfortunately (or firtunately), everyone (me included) is stuck with a best interpretation.

Enjoy all possible interpretations and come out with a simple principle of Tao.

[dawei]

道，可道，非常道；名，可名，非常名

Dao, things are enabled by Dao, but there is no constant Dao; Names, things are enabled by names, but there is no true name.

 

I have moved more towards an understanding like this.

 

Dao, once Dao'ing, is not the eternal Dao.

 

It is a picture of singularity (Wu) arising into multiplicity (You), yet that is not the eternal, true Dao.

 

Comma allows for other variations which reflect the simple principle of Tao.

 

道可，道非，常道； Dao arises, Dao returns, this is the eternal, true Dao.

[ChiDragon]

 

道可，道非，常道； Dao arises, Dao returns, this is the eternal, true Dao.

 

Can you make your presentation in a more scholastic approach to justify your translation or interpretation....??? It seems that I am out of sync with your English terms.

[dawei]

Can you make your presentation in a more scholastic approach to justify your translation or interpretation....??? It seems that I am out of sync with your English terms.

 

I had previously, in one of the scholastic threads, provided the originator of this line of thought. I was merely here giving H.E. something to chew on. I will let the original author speak for his handling of this unconventional comma placement.

 

Sorry to detract from your ch. 1 talk on the received text scholars.

 

I see that DynamicTao quotes one of your links with this:

 

“道，可道，非常道；

 

Did the received text scholars discuss this variation at all?

[ChiDragon]

I had previously, in one of the scholastic threads, provided the originator of this line of thought. I was merely here giving H.E. something to chew on. I will let the original author speak for his handling of this unconventional comma placement.

 

Sorry to detract from your ch. 1 talk on the received text scholars.

 

I see that DynamicTao quotes one of your links with this:

 

“道，可道，非常道；

 

Did the received text scholars discuss this variation at all?

 

Of course, it was a trivial linguistic comprehension anyway. No extensive discussion was necessary.