Time Table of the Tao Te Ching

[Mark Saltveit]

What are the eight digits after 211680 and what is "My MCL password".....???

 

I'm sorry, that must be the link for my local public library. You'll have to look up JSTOR independently and search for the title. I thought that was a universal link for JSTOR, with the publication number being 25066707.

[dawei]

I guess I'm not entirely clear on the rules of the name taboo. I had thought that the taboo only applied during the reign of that emperor. So if the Mawangui versions were written before this emperor's reign, and Heshan Gong was written after, couldn't they both have used that character? Or is that character banned going forward into the future?

 

Valid question. It seems that most of the time that a taboo character change occurred that they did not go back to the original character. Even Fu Yi (555 - 639) version, whom often went back to original MWD characters did not always do so.

 

It may be that after so much time, the original meaning was lost and the surrogate replacement made sense to all.

[ChiDragon]

Most people weren't aware of the changes but they are still have the option to go back to the original characters.

[ChiDragon]

The MWD-A version was written in the Seal style with the character 徹(Che4) included. Therefore, it couldn't have been written after his reign. Besides, any other version after the Han Dynasty would have had been written in the Official style.

[Mark Saltveit]

Right, I was thinking more of the Heshan Gong in regards to taboo. I suppose another possibility is that the Heshan Gong version was written outside of the Han Empire. Fragments were found at Dunhuang, on the very Western edge of the Han Empire. Or it was written by a scribe far removed from the capital who did not respect the taboo.

 

Or it could have been written during the brief Xin Dynasty (9-23 CE), which wasn't much of a dynasty. (I have 2 daughters that have lasted longer).

 

Or, since taboos don't survive dynasties, maybe the taboo from the earlier Western Han didn't survive after Xin into the later Eastern Han.

[ChiDragon]

IMO In the comparison of the versions of the TTC after the Han Dynasty was just merely a codex of MWD-B. I don't see anything was really authentic among them.

[Mark Saltveit]

No added value in the Concubine version?

[Rara]

Tao Te Ching Time table

老子 LaoTze Born: Around 571 BCE.

道德經(TTC) Written: 500 - 491 BCE.

 

...

 

Notes:

1. LaoTze was born around 571 BCE and wrote the DDJ in his seventy's.

孔子(Confucius): 551 - 479 BCE.

庄子(Zhuang Zi): 369 - 286 BCE.

 

 

I'm confused. I thought TTC was officially written down in Zhuangzi's lifetime. Despite Lao Tzu living from around 571 BCE, thought the text itself officially came much much later...

[dawei]

No added value in the Concubine version?

 

In my reading of Wagner's book where he often compares all the versions, there seems little added... in fact, I saw it closer to WB than the older text it would date to... as this link also suggests:

 

Daode jing guben pian [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] 2 juan Edited by Fu Yi [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (555-639) 665 (fasc. 346) "Ancient Recension of the Book of the Way and Its Virtue." This is the plain text of the Laozi, without commentary, based on a manuscript discovered in A.D. 574 at Pengcheng [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (Xuzhou, Jiangsu), in the tomb of a concubine of Xiang Yu [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (233-202 B.C.). See 770 Hunyuan shengji3.20a. The date as well as the stylistic characteristics of the present text establish a relationship with the manuscripts of the Laozi found in 1973 in Han tomb no. 3 at Mawang dui near Changsha (Hunan). The division into a Daopian [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] and a Depian [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] may therefore well correspond to the original arrangement of the text, while the arrangement into eighty-one chapters, according to the so-called Heshang gong zhangju, as well as the indications on the number of characters in each chapter are probably of Fu Yi's own devising.

 

The present text contains 5,556 characters, almost 300 more than the Heshang gong commentary version of 682 Daode zhenjing zhu, which has 5,274. None of these numbers correspond to the indications supposedly given by Fu Yi on the versions he examined in his time: 5,722 characters for the manuscript found at Pengcheng, 5,683 or 5,610 for the Wang Bi commentary version, and 5,555 or 5,590 for the Heshang gong commentary version (770 Hunyuan shengji 3.20a). The present text, however, shows greater affinities to the extant Wang Bi edition than to that attributed to Heshang gong.

 

Ref: http://www.bookdialy.com/book/609275/taoist-canon

[ChiDragon]

No added value in the Concubine version?

 

No, I don't see any added value in the Concubine version(Fu Yi). In the Fu Yi version, both characters 盈 and 滿 were used. Also, Fu Yi used lots of phonetics which doesn't change the original meanings of the phrases. On some phrases, Fu Yi changed a few character which may or may not change the original meaning of the phrases.

 

In Chapter 20, the original phrase: 如嬰兒之未孩(seems like an infant hasn't been laughed yet.)

Fu Yi's version: 如嬰兒之未咳(seems like an infant hasn't been coughed yet.)

 

From a scholar's point of view, the Fu Yi version seems has lots of errors.

 

Edited March 2, 2014 by ChiDragon

[ChiDragon]

I'm confused. I thought TTC was officially written down in Zhuangzi's lifetime. Despite Lao Tzu living from around 571 BCE, thought the text itself officially came much much later...

 

Some people were making the assumption that some of the chapters of the TTC were written after Lao Zi's death. Actually, the Tao Te Ching was written way ahead of Zhuang Zi's time. Later, Zhuang Zi has cited the TTC with more elaborated explanations on the principles of Tao than Lao Zi did. Another words, Lao Zi defines Tao; and Zhuang Zi explains the principles of Tao.

Edited March 4, 2014 by ChiDragon

[Mark Saltveit]

In Chapter 20, the original phrase: 如嬰兒之未孩(seems like an infant hasn't been laughed yet.)

Fu Yi's version: 如嬰兒之未咳(seems like an infant hasn't been coughed yet.)

 

That's funny. Clearly an error, and it ruins the meaning of the passage. It's a really beautiful metaphor.

 

Liu Xiogan's article makes an interesting point about some of the smaller changes that accumulated over the centuries, things like Emperor name taboos but also fairly benign ones, like making the tone more consistent, making lines 4 characters long whenever possible, and removing articles.

 

There's a distinct rhythm to the received DDJ which is the result of this, and appears not to have been nearly so evident in the Mawangdui and Guodian texts. (The lost section is noticeably that way.) The problem is that all of these changes risk changing the meaning of the text, or at least removing clues that help identify other scribe's mistakes.

 

A very interesting source of trouble is the phonetic errors, where a character is replaced by one of its homonyms. (Chinese has a lot of characters that sound the same when spoken.) These are a strong clue that the DDJ was originally transmitted orally and was written down later, perhaps by scribes who weren't that familiar with the original and just wrote down what they heard.

 

 

 

[Rara]

 

Some people were making the assumption that some of the chapters of the TTC were written after Lao Zi's death. Actually, the Tao Te Ching was written way ahead of Zhuang Zi' time. Later, Zhuang Zi has cited the TTC with more elaborated explanations on the principles of Tao than Lao Zi did. Another words, Lao Zi defines Tao; and Zhuang Zi explains the principles of Tao.

 

Interesting. Martin Palmer (who did the foreward, translation and research in my copy of Zhuangzi) said that all chapters were written around the same time as Zhuangzi, hence its formalised structure. 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.

 

Don't quote me on this just yet, as I would need to re-read the foreward, but I'm almost certain that's what he said (he has done research of his own)

 

Just let me know if you would like me to cite what he says...

[Mark Saltveit]

The consensus among most Western scholars is that the Laozi was compiled from various collections of sayings over a long period of time. Perhaps the first chunk was actually written by Lao Dan, who is a historical person who did in fact teach Confucius, or perhaps a later Daoist put the words in Lao Dan's mouth, since as Confucius' teacher he "trumps" him in the battles between Daoists and Confucians.

 

Parts of the Zhuangzi actual put anti-Confucian words in the mouth of Confucius himself, so it wouldn't be that surprising.

 

Interestingly, Chinese scholars seem more inclined to trust the historical theories (ie that Lao Dan rode off to Tibet and a border guard talked him into writing down the DDJ on his way out the gate, etc.)

 

There is pretty strong evidence that at least part of the DDJ was added later. Most notably, none of the DDJ chapters 67-81 are found in the Guodian bamboo strips. The commentary on the DDJ in the Huainanzi ("recently completed" in 139 B.C.E.) also does not mention any of those chapters. This suggests that that author was working from a version that still did not include them, at least 160 years after the Guodian DDJ was sealed in a tomb.

[ChiDragon]

.......... 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.

oh.....yeah

He is going to rewrite the Chinese history pretty soon.

Edited March 3, 2014 by ChiDragon

[dawei]

Interesting. Martin Palmer (who did the foreward, translation and research in my copy of Zhuangzi) said that all chapters were written around the same time as Zhuangzi, hence its formalised structure. 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.

 

Don't quote me on this just yet, as I would need to re-read the foreward, but I'm almost certain that's what he said (he has done research of his own)

 

Just let me know if you would like me to cite what he says...

 

This is worthy of a separate thread... and would be interesting to research. I tend towards a syncretic text.

[Mark Saltveit]

Or we could simply pick up this thread in the existing Chuang Tzu topic.

[dawei]

I don't think this side topic is really about ZZ... but rather, how was it compiled and when. Whether it is close to the time of ZZ is not really about ZZ... unless someone has research showing something compelling for why it is in the time of ZZ but still not sure if that is anything to do with ZZ on some level.

[ChiDragon]

Interesting. Martin Palmer (who did the foreward, translation and research in my copy of Zhuangzi) said that all chapters were written around the same time as Zhuangzi, hence its formalised structure. 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.

 

Don't quote me on this just yet, as I would need to re-read the foreward, but I'm almost certain that's what he said (he has done research of his own)

 

Just let me know if you would like me to cite what he says...

 

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.

[ChiDragon]

This is called 蒃書(seal style) which the MWD-A of the TTC was used.

 

 

 

This 隸書(official style), originated in the Han Dynasty, which the MWD-B of the TTC was used.

FYI.......
There were 81 chapters in the MWD-A and MWD-B. Besides, Zhuang Zi was written in other styles than the previous two. Hence, both copies of the TTC could not and cannot be produced from the philosophy of Zhuang Zi(庄子).

Edited March 4, 2014 by ChiDragon

[Marblehead]

Hence, both copies of the TTC could not and cannot be produced from the philosophy of Zhuang Zi(庄子).

 

 

I would never consider such a suggestion anyhow.

 

It is obvious, IMO, that most, if not all the chapters of the TTC had already been written by the time Chuang Tzu was born and the most, if not all, the Chuang Tzu was written prior to the intorduction of Buddhism into China.

[ChiDragon]

I would never consider such a suggestion anyhow.

 

It is obvious, IMO, that most, if not all the chapters of the TTC had already been written by the time Chuang Tzu was born and the most, if not all, the Chuang Tzu was written prior to the intorduction of Buddhism into China.

 

Let me look into that.....!!!

 

PS....

I would buy that all other documents were written based on the Yi Jing(易經), but not from Zhuang Zi.

 

PPS.....

Instead of using the styles of the characters, let approach it with the writing style of Lao Zi. The way of his expression with words. Of course, one can say anyone can imitate his style of writing. However, it may be so but to make everything to be consistent with his thoughts from chapter to chapter and thought for thought might be difficult.

Edited March 4, 2014 by ChiDragon

[Marblehead]

Yes, I have to leave the Chinese language for others to discuss.

 

But the concepts that are within the documents, if well translated, can be easy to associate.

 

Writing style in something else for me. Granted, Lao Tzu is poem and Chuang Tzu is prose. Does that mean anything? I don't know. Was the TTC composed in the style of the time? And the Chuang Tzu?

[Mark Saltveit]

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

[Apech]

Can I just add that it would be very surprising if the TTC and ZZ were not amalgamated and with several 'layers'. Simply because texts from this early period everywhere in the world were just like this. Fixed texts which we call books today are a modern phenomena. It does not undermine their legitimacy in fact it confirms it.