[TTC Study] Chapter 11 of The Tao Teh Ching

[dynamictao]

Here is my new translation in Tao Te Ching: An Ultimate Translation (Kindle Book):

 

 

1

When thirty spokes fit onto a wheel,

Their "Wu and Yu" make the wagon functional.

2

When clay molds into a vessel,

Their "Wu and Yu" make the vessel functional.

3

When doors are cut out on a wall,

Their "Wu and Yu" make the room functional.[1]

4

Yu provides the support;

Wu provides the function. [2]

[1] The wheel must have spokes and the central hole of the hub to be useful. A vessel must have void and body to be useful. A room must have wall and opening to be useful.

[2] This Chapter exemplifies the importance of Wu and Yu as a pair to form a reality. It does not show either Wu or Yu to be more fundamental in the logic structure. See Introduction.

 

[Marblehead]

I like that. (You are going to lose some readers here if you don't specify how you use "wu" and "yu".)

[ChiDragon]

Chapter 11

1. 三十幅共一轂，

2. 當其無，

3. 有車之用。

4. 埏埴以為器，

5. 當其無，

6. 有器之用。

7. 鑿戶牖以為室，

8. 當其無，

9. 有室之用。

10.故有之以為利，

11.無之以為用。

 

1. Thirty spokes with one hub,

2. Where there is space,

3. It has the function of a carriage.

Interpretation for lines 1 to 3:

It is not the spokes are useful, but the the space between the hub and the wheel is.

 

4. Knead clay to make a utensil,

5. Where there is space,

6. It has the function as a utensil.

Interpretation for lines 4 to 6:

It is not the wall of the utensil is useful. but it is the space inside is.

 

7. Chisel a door and window,

8. Where there is space,

9. It has the function as a room.

Interpretation for lines 7 to 9:

It is not the door and window are useful, but it is the empty space that made the room useful.

 

10.Therefore, "solid" is its benefit;

11.Space is its function.

 

 

If we look at lines, 2, 5, 8, and 11,

I believe that Lao Tze was putting the emphasis on Wu to be the "functional" rather than Yu.

Edited October 31, 2013 by ChiDragon

[flowing hands]

I think we are missing the point here. Li Erh is saying 'nothing', 'emptiness', 'non being', 'space', etc. is the useful part of being. Therefore non-being and emptiness are the makers of being and form. Without them there is no form.

[ChiDragon]

I think we are missing the point here. Li Erh is saying 'nothing', 'emptiness', 'non being', 'space', etc. is the useful part of being. Therefore non-being and emptiness are the makers of being and form. Without them there is no form.

 

I think the metaphor in Chapter 11 was saying exactly that.

10.Therefore, "solid" is its benefit;

11.Space is its function.

Edited February 11, 2013 by ChiDragon

[Marblehead]

I believe that Lao Tze was putting the emphasis on Wu to be the "functional" rather than Yu.

Hey! That's an interesting consideration.

[dynamictao]

The relationship between Wu and Yu has been the central issue of Tao.

I understand that there is no easy way to show this.

The traditional interpretations are pro-Wu and there are too many enjoyable paradoxes associated with this view.

 

It took me 4-5 years to break out the endless loop and reach an alternative interpretation.

Since the interpretation is different from most traditional belief, it will take a long time before the view is accepted as the norm.

It is a difficult topic to discuss. I understand and will not argue against the traiditional views that make Tao "mysterious."

 

What I can say now is that, if we believe that Lao-tzu is logical,

 

"Wu and Yu have to be there together (in a harmonious fashion) to form anything."

"Wu-wei and Yu-wei are also necessary to build a grand system of Tao in the world."

 

The traditional preference for Wu essentially askews the logical structure of Tao, making it the way it is.

The basic model for my analysis is in the following Preview at Amazon:

 

http://www.amazon.com/Tao-Ching-Translation-Searching-ebook/dp/B00B9GKJ46/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1360636007&sr=8-1&keywords=tao+te+ching+wang#reader_B00B9GKJ46

 

If you read Chinese, my article [The Logic of Tao Philosophy] is in Tamkang Journal of Social Sciences ( 淡江人文社會學刊)

http://www2.tku.edu.tw/~tkjour/

[dynamictao]

[Excerpt from Tao Te Ching: An Ultimate Translation (2013)]

 

We may summarize it as The Principle of Oneness 恆一原則: [ Heng 恆 is translated as True; Xuen 玄 as Profound]

 

When we represent one reality by two true manifestations, such as True Wu and True Yu, the two manifestations will have opposite characteristics, but they are equivalent representations of the reality. As realities, the two true manifestations must cover the same domain of the whole reality.

 

To describe the two true manifestations, we define two conventional objects, such as Wu and Yu, to represent the two opposite parts of the whole domain. However, each manifestation, as a whole, must comprise simultaneously both parts (Wu and Yu) in order to have wholeness to represent the reality. For this reason, the true manifestations cannot be described definitely with the conventional objects, so they will appear as profound, mysterious, and with great subtlety.

 

According to this Principle of Oneness, any “division” of a reality will result in “multiple” equivalent and true manifestations of the same reality. A reality is thus indivisible, since each “part” will still reflect the same “whole” reality.

The relationship between the parts and the whole is as ancient as the beginning of philosophy. This is a common problem in all philosophy, East and West. Our search for the principle of Tao also brings us back to this basic question.

[Marblehead]

Okay. I see where you are going with this. You are thus stating that "wu" is a manifest state just as is the state of "yu"? Therefore we have the "yu" aspect of a thing, a room, the ceiling, walls, floor, etc and we have the "wu" aspcet of that thing, the room, the living space within.

 

Are you therefore saying that "wu" and "yu" arose simultaneously? - that "yu" is not a subset of "wu"? This new view would negate your old view, wouldn't it?

[dynamictao]

I do not remember my old view, but I do know the current view is more consistent with the logic in Chapter 1 (and with many other things). I now have no confidence in treating Wu and Yu any other way. The view will have its own life. If it is not Tao, it will perish.

For this reason, I do not support many traditional views, but I will not argue against them. Whatever is more useful is useful to the believers.

 

I only look at the core principle and believe that Lao-tzu is as wise as many other wise ones (not just a mystic, trying to confuse us). The Principle of Oneness is a universal rule, for any philosophical discussion of "reality."

[Marblehead]

Nice generalized response. Hehehe. I gather we will be discussing this new view. That's fine. The more choices I have the better for me.

[scribe]

Why are there 30 spokes?

[Marblehead]

Why are there 30 spokes?

Because it was too difficult to space 29 spokes at equal distances from each other.

 

Actually, just last night I watched a documentarty about the early Egyptians and it was said that when the got hold of an enemy chariot (they didn't have any at the time) the wheels had only four spokes and the Egyptians added two more for additional support of the outer rim.  I would imagine that the rougher the ground being travelled the more spokes one would want between the rim and the hub.

[scribe]

Because it was too difficult to space 29 spokes at equal distances from each other.

 

Not too flippant a question. It feels like Lao Tze didn't waste words, so I'm curious why he chose to specify 30 here. Maybe it was some kind of ancient Chinese standard, but I'm also intrigued by a possible (tenuous?) link to the 30 hexagrams in the upper cannon. Spokes and structure become the yang of the upper cannon, while space becomes the yin of the lower cannon?

 

If you have 30 spokes, how many spaces do you have?

 

 

Actually, just last night I watched a documentarty about the early Egyptians and it was said that when the got hold of an enemy chariot (they didn't have any at the time) the wheels had only four spokes and the Egyptians added two more for additional support of the outer rim.  I would imagine that the rougher the ground being travelled the more spokes one would want between the rim and the hub.

 

Spares in case of a breakdown? ;-)

[Marblehead]

After I made my above post yesterday I did a quick search and found a Chinese chariot with 12 spokes,

 

Yes, the 30 might have a significance I have totally missed.

 

29 spaces.

 

And also later I recalled that the Egyptians made a couple more improvements to the chariot as well and those served them very well in combat.

 

I wish I could say more but my knowledge is lacking.  I know there are a couple members who have more knowledge than I regarding ancient Chinese history.  Maybe they'll add comment if they read this thread.

[dust]

Well I'm not really a historian but I had a look through some images of old Chinese carriages, chariots, war chariots, etc. The most I counted is 26 spokes. Many have 16 or 18. Then I thought to consider a more specific time frame, and searched for Chu vehicles.. and found this:

 

http://m.secretchina.com/node/330431

 

edit:

It says that these are typical command chariots, found with various weapons (lances etc), dating from around 344 BC.

 

I count perhaps 30-32 spokes on the wheel in the picture. The time period, number of spokes on these wheels, and number of spokes in LZ's ch.11 all seem to fit...

Edited July 26, 2015 by dustybeijing

[9thousandthings]

Why are there 30 spokes?

 

And old thread, but I happened to be thinking about this chapter tonight, and came upon this commentary in Red Pine's translation:

 

"Ho-Shang Kung says: Ancient carts had thirty spokes in imitation of the lunar number."