Forsake knowledge

[rene]

There is not much divine in this chapter,....

 

Oh...I so disagree with that.

 

Your post shows me that we approach The Laozi in very different ways, which is fine.

 

To me, underlying every chapter is the reflection of the divine as Mikeb85 calls it.. as seed, as foundational support... and glimmers of its true nature can be seen through the words of each chapter! No less so in Ch19 than any other.

 

Lienshan, I've enjoyed your efforts over the decades and your passion for linguistics is a gift for us to watch and one that I appreciate. I wish I could play on your home-court but I cannot unhook my starting premise to be able to do so.

 

But I can keep the bench warm and cheer from time to time. (-:

 

warm regards

[ChiDragon]

That's the challenge of this chapter! What makes sense and what is nonsense to you as the reader?

To reject wisdom is nonsense to me. Shall I throw Tao Te Ching out of the window?

 

Only if one interprets those lines as follow:

"Forsake holiness! Reject wisdom! ........................

Forsake benevolence! Reject righteousness! ..........................

Forsake indigenousness! Reject vantage! ...........................?

 

Might as well, throw the Tao Te Ching out of the window. Furthermore, the interpreter should jump out the window too.

[dawei]

And here's the 'down on earth' way of reading the three sentences:

 

The holiness of forsakenness rejects the wisdom that the people will profit a hundredfold.

The benevolence of forsakenness rejects the righteousness that the people will return to filial piety.

The practice of forsakenness rejects the profit that the thieves will have nothing to rob.

 

I think you are getting very close here.

 

The middle and end of the chapter reveals that the opening lines are meant to be understood as 'incomplete' [wisdom]. It can be conveyed in translation in various ways. I don't necessarily agree with the construct within each line that "A" rejects "B"; I think all three lines in their entirety are to be rejected.

 

It is almost like saying: The common wisdom is found in the following three sayings.... but these are incomplete wisdom.

 

---

 

I also agree with Mike and Rene on their comments; this is how I view the chapters.

[ChiDragon]

In according the Lao Tze's wisdom and due to the paradoxical classic writing, "forsake wisdom" is more like "forsake cunning wisdom".

The logic will fall within context with the phrase "People benefited hundredfold."

1. .........forsake cunning wisdom
2. People benefited hundredfold.

[idiot_stimpy]

All wisdom is a fictional story of the mind. Let it go.

 

It has its purpose to bring you up to see, then it must be released or it itself becomes an obstacle.

[Samurai Mountain man]

Dwell too much time on a passage of the TTC and you'll have it's meaning lost to you.

 

The Tao Te ching often goes back and forth with itself, It seems to disregard the very foundations of what "sageliness" is and that's the beauty of it. I think it contradicts itself often openly and blatantly at times as way of making the reader challenge what he knows, it invites you to even question what you're reading to stop taking everything for granted or something along those lines. It secretly teaches many things without trying to teach them -making you discover it on your own- It teaches about ultimate humility and wisdom and for some reason im bound not to tell you more, and im guessing many of you know why.

 

 

It's so beautiful; so subtle. can't help but laugh really. Im feeling so peaceful right now, no more anger.

[DragonsNectar69k]

Many religious traditions that embrace mysticism have this concept.

 

The idea is that direct experience of the divine is superior to knowledge and wisdom about the divine. The sage isn't a smart or learned man, but one who has directly experienced the divine and understands it.

 

What he ^^^ said.

[lienshan]

Dwell too much time on a passage of the TTC and you'll have it's meaning lost to you.

 

I think it contradicts itself often openly and blatantly at times

 

That's my way of paying respect to Laozi. I do my best to read what he wanted me to read.

 

The translators contradict themselves; Laozi doesn't. An example:

"the people will benefit a hundredfold" followed by "Reject benefit"?

That was Laozi's way to tell us to read the same character in two different meanings!

That's why I use the english word "vantage" that fits perfectly within the context:

 

Forsake holiness! Reject wisdom! The people will benefit a hundredfold.

Forsake benevolence! Reject righteousness! The people will return filial piety.

Forsake opportuneness! Reject vantage! The traitor and thief will be non-existent.

Consider the three sentences as an humble envoy.

Someone's command goes to someone from a subordinate position.

To regard as matter is to guard as the substance of matter.

A little selfishness is a few desires.

 

 

The someone receiving Laozi's message is the traitor and thief Shen Dao

 

If the worthy are subjected by the unworthy, it is because their authority is light and their position is low.

If the unworthy can be subjected by the worthy, it is because the authority of the latter is heavy

and their position is honorable. When Yao was a commoner, he could not govern even three people;

Jie, as the Son of Heaven, could bring chaos to the whole world. From this I know,

that positions of power are sufficient to rely on, and that worthiness and wisdom are not worth yearning for.

(a Shen Dao quote)

Edited April 28, 2013 by lienshan

[Samurai Mountain man]

Yes, two meanings. Each meaning being the exact opposite of the other. Sound familiar? where have I heard of such ambivalence!

[Stosh]

Me, for one.

Its why I contend that lao presents only one side of the coin, but both sides are there to be seen.

Both valid if one is willing to see how.

[lienshan]

I think this would need a 之 between the words to connect their meanings like this.

 

There's according to Pulleyblank exceptions where 之 is omitted; esspecially when syllables (same category of words supplementing each other; example yes and no). Holiness and Forsakenness are syllables, Benevolence and forsakenness are are syllables, but indigenousness and forsakenness aren't syllables. The character meaning indigenousness has another meaning, opportuneness, that is syllable with forsakenness!

The three lines can thus too be read this way:

 

The holiness of forsakenness rejects the wisdom, that the people will benefit a hundredfold.

The benevolence of forsakenness rejects the righteousness, that the people will return filial piety.

The opportuneness of forsakenness rejects the vantage, that the traitor and thief will be non-existent.

 

That'll say the third line is about being at the right spot at the right time!

Edited April 28, 2013 by lienshan

[rene]

[3bob]

.

Neither the master nor 99% anyone else can really claim that of themselves or as a truism since at some time or in some life they to spent a lot of years making study of and or reading such text and whatever translations they may have been involved with.

 

.

Edited April 29, 2013 by 3bob

[lienshan]

the sound of the rain needs no translation

 

The deaf bedouin who lives in the middle of the Sahara desert needs a translation

 

 

All known versions of Tao Te Ching are translations from the the pre-Qin classical chinese into Han-chinese.

The Guodian version is a firsthand copy of some of the original manuscript; a mixture of completed chapters,

drafts and notes. There're for example two versions of chapter 64 showing, that Laozi had a change of mind

concerning sages, when he was replacing most of his oldfashioned 亡 (to lose) characters with the modern

無 (to not have) characters.

I think that the first three lines of the Received chapter 19 version was editted and changed by Laozi himself:

 

Forsake holiness! Reject wisdom! The people will benefit a hundredfold.

Forsake benevolence! Reject righteousness! The people will return filial piety.

Forsake opportuneness! Reject vantage! The traitor and thief will be non-existent.

 

Forsake wisdom! Reject debate! The people will benefit a hundredfold.

Forsake opportuneness! Reject vantage! The traitor and thief will be non-existent.

Forsake hypocrisy! Reject anxiety! The people will return to the youngest child.

 

The last term of the Guodian version indicates filial piety but is too the name of the Zhou king Ji, who was the youngest son of King Tai. Sima Qian recorded that he and his son were both renowned for their wisdom and this reputation caused his elder brothers Taibo and Zhongyong to voluntarily renounce their claims on the throne and leave in exile to Wu. That'll say the term indicates, that the Shen Dao point of view was a strive for the throne.

 

In the Guodian version are the chapters 19-66-46 (in that order) one single chapter!

That'll say the conclussion concerning the three lines is at the bottom of chapter 46:

 

There's no larger crime than extreme desire.

There's no more sorrowful conflict than spoils sharing.

There's no greater misfortune than not knowing when enough.

 

What's forever enough: Enough knowledge is enough!

 

Or should the last line be read as:

 

What's forever enough: Enough experience is enough!

Edited April 29, 2013 by lienshan

[Stosh]

.

Neither the master nor 99% anyone else can really claim that of themselves or as a truism since at some time or in some life they to spent a lot of years making study of and or reading such text and whatever translations they may have been involved with.

 

.

He he , very good!

But good luck to you

that your words stand up to Mr Watts on the basis of being true ,alone.

[3bob]

Mr. Watts was quoting some "great" master not himself, btw if any master forgets what he to went through and what many are going through now then what manner of master is he?

[rene]

.

Neither the master nor 99% anyone else can really claim that of themselves or as a truism since at some time or in some life they to spent a lot of years making study of and or reading such text and whatever translations they may have been involved with.

 

I guess some people feel the rain, others just get wet.

[rene]

hey lienshan - look at your post #39, at what you have me quoted as saying.

 

where did those words come from? Not me.

 

thanks!

[3bob]

a seed buried in the ground does not feel the rain but does get wet which is the beginning of its end,

yet it does not regret that beginning or end as having been a waste when standing as tree under the sun..

Edited April 29, 2013 by 3bob

[rene]

Who said anything about waste? There seems to be a real "either/or" component sneaking into this thread... Extreme ends (either end) still cannot exist without its compliment. Beginning and end, standing alone, are undefined. No waste that I can see.

 

warm regards

[3bob]

umm, your quote in #37 mentions waste Rene

[rene]

umm, your quote in #37 mentions waste Rene

 

So it does!

 

I obviously didn't waste any time examining each and every word in that pic...but rather went with the point of what was being said: That the rain needs no translation. Thanks for bringing this to my attention, for it (embarrasingly) reinforces the idea of either extreme being less than useful.

 

warmest regards

[Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan]

The deaf bedouin who lives in the middle of the Sahara desert needs a translation

 

 

 

 

only if they cant feel the rain... sound is perceptible by more than hearing.

[ChiDragon]

There is no knowledge to be forsake in this thread; let's forsake the thread......

[lienshan]

There seems to be a real "either/or" component sneaking into this thread...

 

I rejected wisdom ... the Zen wisdom of a great master ... with an arguement pointing at the reality.

 

I'm still ontread and not offtread: Reject wisdom! or Reject knowledge! or Reject experience!

 

The character Laozi used could mean any of these three possiblities, but which one?