Time Table of the Tao Te Ching

[ChiDragon]

I think it is not so simple as the script used. Either or both of the books may have been passed down as oral traditions for decades or centuries before someone wrote them down. Or there may have been loose varying collections of sayings and parables that they were pulled from.

 

The DDJ has to our eyes a very consistent tone and style, but Liu Xiogan demonstrates (using the Guodian and Mawandui versions) that this consistent was created by later editors who repeatedly modified the text specifically to sound that way.

 

BTW, there were not 81 chapters in the Mawangdui -- a couple groups of today's 81 chapters were combined into one chapter there. And Edward L. Shaughnessy makes a very compelling argument that today's chapters 30 and 31 were really 3 chapters originally, with a short one in the middle of those that was accidentally merged, probably because a scribe dropped a single bamboo strip and put it back in the wrong place. Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, Vol. 65, No. 2 (Dec., 2005), pp. 417-457

 

The script was used is very important. At the time, it had established a baseline and cut off the oral communication of what had been said before. At least we know where do we stand, at that time, with the TTC. For example, since the MWD-A was written down on silk to prevent from further contamination and confusion, it will lock in whatever was said in the past. Anything after that we can compare it with MWD-A. As with the MWD-B, we knew it was copied and revised from MWD-A during the Han Dynasty for sure. Furthermore, any version after both MWD-A and MWD-B had indicated that they are still holding the integrity of the fundamental concepts, even though, with a few minor alterations.

 

Edited March 4, 2014 by ChiDragon

[Mark Saltveit]

Ah, I think we're using the word "script differently. MANUscripts are extremely important, of course. I thought you meant the type of writing (such as Seal Script).

 

In both cases though they are not absolute proof of anything, and don't show that oral transmission stopped. (People recite the DDJ today still).

 

For example, we have the Mawangdui silk texts, and the Beida DDJ also has the De and Dao sections in reverse order of the Wang Bi and Heshan Gong versions. But that doesn't prove there was one original like that -- these could be variations like Neanderthal Man, related to humans but died out. Obviously whoever did Heshan Gong thought the order was Dao, then De -- maybe from a different lineage of texts?

 

Guodian for example -- it could be raw chunks that changed into the Mawandui version, or it could be a teacher's favorite selections from a bigger work. Or selections from a bunch of raw fragments. It's very hard to say. Guodian didn't have De and Dao sections at all. Were the three bundles found there three "sections" (pian) or is it just too hard to tie that many strips together, so he did smaller bundles?

[Marblehead]

... or it could be a teacher's favorite selections from a bigger work.

I prefer this view but have no sound grounds except that it sounds logical to me.

[ChiDragon]

I thought you meant the type of writing (such as Seal Script).

 

Yes, the Seal Script, that was what I meant by script. At least, it was in written form which indicates what had been said within a time period. It can be used to compare as reference in the future. Right now, there is a modern received version which had been corrected by incorporating all the errors found by the past and modern scholars in a logical manner.

 

As a matter of fact, the modern Received Version was using both the MWD-A and MWD-B as reference and baseline for the corrections by the knowledgeable native scholars. The idea was that both versions were the oldest copies of the TTC and accumulated less errors in its time. Any version after that would have had been picking up more errors which was introduced by future scholars.

Edited March 4, 2014 by ChiDragon

[Mark Saltveit]

Right. It's so hard to know, between Emperor name taboos, the homonyms, the changes Liu Xiogan discusses (such as different words to match other sections, making lines more uniformly four characters, and removing a lot of the articles.)

 

There were also some apparent ideological changes, too. The received version is more critical of Confucian thought, but the Guodian version had different characters that were less of a slap at that school. Then again, the Guodian bamboo strips were found buried with Confucian texts, so maybe they were modified that way and the received is actually true to the original?

 

I'm wary of anyone with too strong of opinion about what these books must have been like back then. It was a long time ago.

[flowing hands]

The DDJ was definitely written by Li Erh Xian Shi. It may not have been in book form like it is presented today, but it was written by him. It was not called DDJ when he wrote it, someone else has called it that since. He called it then 'The sacred texts of the way and its heart' and it had more verses than what we have today.

Maybe sometime he may tell me what they were and I'll write them down for all to read. A first!!!

Any confusion with texts found in Confucian graves can be dismissed. Daoist were very much opposed to Confucian ideas, although scribes may have used those ideas to alter the DDJ.

[ChiDragon]

Right. It's so hard to know, between Emperor name taboos, the homonyms, the changes Liu Xiogan discusses (such as different words to match other sections, making lines more uniformly four characters, and removing a lot of the articles.)

 

There were also some apparent ideological changes, too. The received version is more critical of Confucian thought, but the Guodian version had different characters that were less of a slap at that school. Then again, the Guodian bamboo strips were found buried with Confucian texts, so maybe they were modified that way and the received is actually true to the original?

 

I'm wary of anyone with too strong of opinion about what these books must have been like back then. It was a long time ago.

 

One wouldn't be surprised how significant that the unearthed copies of both MWD-A and MWD-B were to native scholars. For example, if there is a most knowledgeable scholar about the Tao Te Ching, then it would be Mr. Chen Ku Ying(陳鼓應).

 

Chen Ku-ying, born in 1935, people of changting County, Fujian province. Taiwan University philosophy department and Graduate Institute of philosophy. Former Taiwan University Professor of philosophy and Professor of philosophy at Peking University, United States, University of California, Berkeley, campus researchers, Czech Charles University, visiting Professor, East Asian Department,

 

There is a phrase in Chapter 2 of all other versions, except MWD-A and MWD-B, has been bothering him for years.

高下相傾: High and low(levels of class) are mutually lean toward each other.

 

In MWD-A and MWD-B:

高下相盈: High and low are mutually encompass each other.

 

盈 is the only character that was change in all other versions of the TTC because of the emperor name taboo. Most of the people just took it for granted and came up with ambiguous interpretations. However, it was not the case with Prof. Chen Ku Ying. After the unearthed copies of MWD-A and MWD-B. it had been cleared up the air for Mr. Chen Ku Ying and put his mind at ease. He had corrected his received version of the TTC by restoring the character 盈 in its rightful place.

 

Note:

The high and low were referring to the two different level class of people.

Edited March 5, 2014 by ChiDragon

[Mark Saltveit]

Interesting. The Guodian slips have the same character 盈 as the Mawangdui

http://www.daoisopen.com/A6toA9Chapters64b37632.html

[ChiDragon]

Interesting. The Guodian slips have the same character 盈 as the Mawangdui

http://www.daoisopen.com/A6toA9Chapters64b37632.html

 

Of course, the Guodian version is much older than both the Mawangdui versions.

 

Please note that all the versions have the character 盈, except Chapter 2 was changed. Thus the significance of the older versions will reveal the authenticity of the TTC.

Edited March 5, 2014 by ChiDragon

[Mark Saltveit]

I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand. Which version has 傾: ?

[dawei]

I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand. Which version has 傾: ?

 

GD: 高下之相盈也

MWD-A: 高下之相盈也

MWD-B: 高下之相盈也

HSG: 高下相傾

WB: 高下相傾

FY: 高下之相傾

[ChiDragon]

I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand. Which version has 傾: ?

 

Chapter 2, only, in all the versions after the MWD-B version. For examples, Heshang Gong(河上公), Wang Bi(王弼), and Fu Yi(傅奕).

Edited March 6, 2014 by ChiDragon

[Mark Saltveit]

Got it, sorry to be dense. Thanks.

[ChiDragon]

No problem, it was my pleasure and you are welcome!

Edited March 6, 2014 by ChiDragon

[Marblehead]

So have we yet arrived at the conclusion that most, if not all, of the TTC was already in written form prior to Chuang Tzu's birth and that Buddhism was not introduced into China until after Chuang Tzu's death?

[Mark Saltveit]

So have we yet arrived at the conclusion that most, if not all, of the TTC was already in written form prior to Chuang Tzu's birth and that Buddhism was not introduced into China until after Chuang Tzu's death?

 

Buddhism was not introduced to China until about 80 C.E. There's dispute over when the Zhuangzi was pulled together, but the historical figure of Zhuang Zhou is pretty solidly pegged to the Warring States period. It's just not clear how much, if any, of the book he wrote, or if he produced a ton of rambling stuff that was later condensed into the current book..

 

But there are a number of references to the book in Pre-Han times -- in the Xunzi, Hanfeizi, and Lushi Chunqiu -- and two slightly later archaeological finds of fragments -- 157 - 179 B.C.E. -- so yeah, that seems pretty safe. Interestingly, almost none of those references are to the Inner Chapters, even though most people consider that the oldest, "most authentic" section of Zhuangzi.

 

When the DDJ was in written form? Well, a lot of chapters 2-66 were written down no later than 300 BCE, and perhaps decades earlier, as we know from Guodian. That's precisely when Sima Qian says Zhuangzi lived -- during the reigns of of King Hui of Liang (r. 369-319 BCE) and King Xuan of Qi (r. 320-301 BCE), Of course it could have been much older but the only evidence of that is tradition.

Edited March 6, 2014 by Mark Saltveit

[Marblehead]

Okay, I'm still with you guys then. I don't want to pretend but then I want to give credit where credit is due as well.

 

I know you guys have been talking about only the TTC but Taoism should be looked at in the whole as well as just at the TTC. And this includes Alchemic and Religious Taoism as well.

[Rara]

 

I doubt that he had a thorough research in "It was said that people took his philosophy and put it into a book from whatever material they had from the man (or people) himself." Otherwise, he wouldn't have had made such generalization. IMO Even one who doesn't read the Classics would be able to come up with a conclusion, more precisely. Indeed, it can be determined based on the style of the characters that was used for each document.

Actually, that was my brief generalisation. Don't make me grab my book!

[Rara]

So have we yet arrived at the conclusion that most, if not all, of the TTC was already in written form prior to Chuang Tzu's birth and that Buddhism was not introduced into China until after Chuang Tzu's death?

Whatever we conclude won't be final. Just you wait until the "new research shows" headline comes out!

[ChiDragon]

So have we yet arrived at the conclusion that most, if not all, of the TTC was already in written form prior to Chuang Tzu's birth and that Buddhism was not introduced into China until after Chuang Tzu's death?

No, my guess is that the original copy of the TTC was burnt by 秦始皇(The emperor of Qin who unified China).

Those are not burn were buried underground in somebody's grave. However, we can only try to prove that a complete copy was written before Zhuang Zi by digging into the historic classics.

Edited March 6, 2014 by ChiDragon

[dawei]

No, my guess is that the original copy of the TTC was burnt by 秦始皇(The emperor of Qin who unified China).

Those are not burn were buried underground in somebody's grave. However, we can only try to prove that a complete copy was written before Zhuang Zi by digging into the historic classics.

 

I am curious by this idea that the Qin Emperor burnt certain texts... how was that really implemented and enforced? How would they know if Chu was burning books in question?

 

It is enough to say that books were buried... many underground but some in walls, etc. Hidden from eyes...

[ChiDragon]

The books were burnt and scholars were buried alive. The only book that was not burnt is the Yi Jing(易經) because there was no political contents. For sure we don't know was the original of the TTC burnt or not. Certainly, there is no sight of it.

[Mark Saltveit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_of_books_and_burying_of_scholars

 

It was part of the effort to consolidate the empire under the Qin by destroying dissenting voices, so they certainly would have gone to the center of the Jixia school and destroyed dissenting texts with some intensity. Nothing if not systematic, those Qin.

[ChiDragon]

秦始皇 (Qin Shi Huangdi), the first emperor of China

An interesting question, should he(秦始皇) be the "first emperor of China" or the "first king of China".......??? Please state your reason for your answer.

[Marblehead]

I think this will be a matter of semantics.

 

My understanding (it has been a very long time since my studies of ancient China) is that he first became king of a more or less unified China. Then, after the empire became more or less established he declared himself to be the Son of Heaven which act would then establish him as Emperor.

 

(I am very open to correction regarding this.)

Edited March 8, 2014 by Marblehead