Dao, De, and the rest; character frequency & concept importance

[dust]

In this, and a bunch of similar threads, people spend much time and energy attempting to define words/concepts that they believe to be the very most important in the text, namely 'Dao' and 'De'. This is often because "Dao De Jing" is the popular 'title' of the 'book', and so of course 'Dao' and 'De' must be the thing that it's all about, right?

 

In my opinion, thinking of "Dao De Jing" as the "the title of the book" is a mistake, and leads to placing too much emphasis on these two words alone, while many other concepts and many individual chapters are barely discussed.

 

It's a title of the text, but it was not named "Dao De Jing" until a long time -- at least a couple of hundred years -- after it was written. It's not like the author sat back at the end of a long day's writing, stretched, said, "This is a book focused solely on discussing Dao and De, so I shall title it 'The Classic about Dao and De'", and sent it off to his publisher with strict instructions about the title. Actually, let's be clear: that did not happen!

 

In the spirit of undermining popular discussion, I thought it might be interesting to look at how often certain words/concepts are mentioned in the text itself (rather than the 'title'), and attempt some kind of very basic analysis of the text's main focal points. I'm no analyst, and any assistance is welcome, as is any (constructive) criticism. This post is just a very simple beginning, and I hope others can offer their own analyses of central concepts.

 

Counting characters in the received text (and removing particles, pronouns, and other 'less important' words), the most frequent are:

 

为    114   wei    (11 times as 无为 wuwei, 2 times as 为无为 weiwuwei, 7 times as 不为, 1 time as 无不为 wubuwei)

无    102   wu
天    92     Heaven/sky (58 times as 天下, 'All under Heaven'; 9 times as 天地 'Heaven and Earth')
有    82     you/yu
道    75     Dao
知    57     know
大    57     great
善    52     good
德    43     De

 

see full list of 21 most frequent characters at bottom *

 

De is the 9th (21st if we include all characters) most frequent character, and is only mentioned in 15 chapters (by my quick count). Its frequency is mostly due to it being mentioned numerous times in certain chapters, such as 38, 51, 54. Dao is 5th most frequent, and mentioned in 37 chapters (again, by my quick count).

 

If we analyze the Guodian text in the same way, we find De is used only 11 times (according to my possibly incorrect Word doc, but more or less 11). It "doesn't even break the top ten", as they say. It is mentioned in 4 of the 33 'chapters' (again, its frequency due to being mentioned numerous times in a couple of places). Dao is much more important than De in the GD compared to modern versions of the text.

 

I'm not trying to say that the concept of De, whatever you believe that to be, is not important to the text or to any of us. I am suggesting that it's not as much of a central concept as many seem to think. The text is not a rambling essay on De and what it means; the majority of chapters make no mention of it at all. Even Dao is not the focal point of over half of the chapters. 38 chapters contain no occurrence of either Dao or De. That's nearly half the text!

 

On the other hand:

 

知 zhi 'know' occurs 57 times in 31 chapters, and is clearly a very important term, but comparatively little is ever made of it;

 

善 shan, commonly translated as 'good', occurs 52 times in 18 chapters; it is in my opinion equally as hard to define as 'De', and like zhi and a few others, rarely gets discussed.

 

Of course, 为 and 无, wei and wu occur the most frequently, and concepts surrounding these characters (and their combinations) are discussed regularly and with passion... though I think it's worth asking whether or not the concepts wuwei and weiwuwei, being mentioned 11 and 2 times respectively, are again as important to the text as a whole as many of us have decided.

 

Based on both this (admittedly simple) frequency count and some degree of familiarity with the text as a whole, I think a more apt 'title' would be something like: The Classic about Dao, Rulership, Letting Go of Things, Wu, Wei, You, a little bit about De, and a Bunch of Other Cool Stuff. Not really snappy, but more accurate.

 

 

*

之    248
不    238
以    164
其    140
而    117
为    114
无    102
天    92
者    91
人    85
下    82
有    82
道    75
是    69
故    62
知    57
大    57
善    52
於    49
若    45
德    43

Edited October 19, 2015 by dustybeijing

[Marblehead]

Once the concepts have been grasped the words can be forgotten.  -  Chuang Tzu.

[leth]

First of all i think it is problematic to use word/character frequency to analyse what the subject of a text is. When we talk about a subject we tend to use words that describe it rather than the word for the subject itself. For instance how frequent is the word accident in a newspaper article about a large accident?

 

Having that said, it would be intersting to see a word frequency count of the Goudian versions.

 

The work is mostly referenced as 'Laozi' in academical works for the very reason that Daodejing is not an orignial title.

 

But the title daodejing was applied because it is considered to have two parts, one which is focused around the subject of Dao and the other which is focused on the subject of De. This is true for the Wang Bi version which in a way has defined how we look at the work. The works history before Wang Bi's version isn't that well know, we know that he did not really author any of the content, but we also don't know much about the origins of the material he used, or how the chapter order and content developed.

 

If we compare the Wang Bi version with what was found in Mawangdui and what was found in Guodian, we'll notice that not only the order and availability of chapters have changed but also to some extent their content. We can't make to many conclusions from this, but it appears that the work seemed to change during the han and pre-han era. But the Wang Bi version seemed to define the work as we now know it. And the work edited by Wang Bi is mostly about Dao and De, but of course it touches many other (and often related) concept.

 

Another aspect is that the view of Daoism is mainly focused on Dao and De. And that is another discussion, but suffice to say that shiji is as fundamental in the categorisation of Daoism as Wang Bi's edition of Laozi is of the work itself.

 

And i think this is a good example of how historical works can be very defining in the way we think about certain things. shiji is over 2000 years old, but still influences the way we think. Wang Bi's edition of loazi is sligthly younger but aslo greatly influences the way we think today.

 

There are many other works that does this, but I think it's fair to say that laozi is indeed on of the greater immortals out there.

 

And i dare to say that throughout history Dao and De has been the core of many Daoist schools of thought. So why should we not focus on them when we talk about Daoist traditions or Daoist thought?

 

 

>知 zhi 'know' occurs 57 times in 31 chapters, and is clearly a very important term, but comparatively little is ever made of it;

 

I've engaged in many discussion on epistemology or other realted fields in Daoist thought, and I dare to say that this is a rather common topic. Especially scepticism and linguistic determinism.

 

>善 shan, commonly translated as 'good', occurs 52 times in 18 chapters; it is in my opinion equally as hard to define as 'De', and like zhi and a few others, rarely gets discussed.

 

I have also been in many discussion on ethics and metaethics in Daoist thought.

 

While there is merit in actually analysing the characters themselves, and I agree that these characters are underrepresented in character analysis. I really think that most discussion are do not really analyse characters. Sure Dao and De is often mentioned in debates, but i think that is because that is mostly because it is not always appropriate to use terms from western philosophy.  I think it's easier to place 知 in epistemology than it is to place 道 in ontology or 德 in  ethics for instance while 善 fits rather well in with ethics. But of course there is still much to be said about how these terms differ from western thought on the subject, but the terminology of ethics and epistemology is well developed and can deal with many different viewpoints of both knowledge and moral values.

[dust]

First of all i think it is problematic to use word/character frequency to analyse what the subject of a text is. When we talk about a subject we tend to use words that describe it rather than the word for the subject itself. For instance how frequent is the word accident in a newspaper article about a large accident?

 

Well, yes indeed. So.. that 'De' is mentioned as often as it is does not mean that there are not other concepts running through the text that are named less frequently but that are equally important..?

 

And I would assert that articles about accidents probably mention the word 'accident' once or twice but that it is considered good writing practice to use synonyms (mishap, crash, collision, etc) in copy and related media, and indeed to offer more emotive, dramatic words (trauma, tragedy, disaster, catastrophe...).

 

In the New Testament, we find that 'God' and 'Jesus' and their synonyms (Lord, Christ) are by far the most common words.

 

 

Having that said, it would be intersting to see a word frequency count of the Goudian versions.

 

I've put what I would consider the more 'important' / 'meaty' characters in bold. Top 30 (according again to a Word doc I have on my computer):

 

之    91

也    58

不    56

以    53

亓    45

而    40

爲    37  wei

亡    32  wang (wu)

天    32  tian  heaven

大    28  great

下    27

可    26

道    25  Dao

智    22  zhi   know / knowledge

弗    20

是    20

者    20

人    19

又    18  you   have

若    18

古    17

民    15  min  people

事    14

足    14  zu   sufficient

得    13

於    13

自    13  zi   self

身    13  shen  body

曰    12

聖    12  sheng  sage

 

 

 

The work is mostly referenced as 'Laozi' in academical works for the very reason that Daodejing is not an orignial title.

 

Often, but it's not so common that most people are aware of it.

 

 

But the title daodejing was applied because it is considered to have two parts, one which is focused around the subject of Dao and the other which is focused on the subject of De. This is true for the Wang Bi version which in a way has defined how we look at the work. The works history before Wang Bi's version isn't that well know, we know that he did not really author any of the content, but we also don't know much about the origins of the material he used, or how the chapter order and content developed.

 

Yes -- it was obviously considered, by some, to be focused around Dao and De, hence the 'title'. I am contesting that these people were wrong

 

 

And the work edited by Wang Bi is mostly about Dao and De, but of course it touches many other (and often related) concept.

 

Well..I disagree.

 

 

Another aspect is that the view of Daoism is mainly focused on Dao and De.

(...)

And i dare to say that throughout history Dao and De has been the core of many Daoist schools of thought. So why should we not focus on them when we talk about Daoist traditions or Daoist thought?

 

Whether or not 'Daoism' is focused mainly on Dao and De should not colour our view of the Laozi. When we analyze its concepts we should do so based on their importance in the text, not 'Daoism' as a whole.

 

 

>知 zhi 'know' occurs 57 times in 31 chapters, and is clearly a very important term, but comparatively little is ever made of it;

 

 

I've engaged in many discussion on epistemology or other realted fields in Daoist thought, and I dare to say that this is a rather common topic. Especially scepticism and linguistic determinism.

 

OK, but have you engaged in many discussions about 'zhi' in the Laozi specifically? This is the Laozi / DDJ subforum..

 

 

>善 shan, commonly translated as 'good', occurs 52 times in 18 chapters; it is in my opinion equally as hard to define as 'De', and like zhi and a few others, rarely gets discussed.

 

I have also been in many discussion on ethics and metaethics in Daoist thought.

 

It is commonly translated as 'good', but it does not refer strictly to moral goodness. It has a number of layers, and the fact that some think it only means 'morally good' shows how poorly it is understood.

 

 

While there is merit in actually analysing the characters themselves, and I agree that these characters are underrepresented in character analysis.

 

OK. Cool.

 

 

I really think that most discussion are do not really analyse characters. Sure Dao and De is often mentioned in debates, but i think that is because that is mostly because it is not always appropriate to use terms from western philosophy.  I think it's easier to place 知 in epistemology than it is to place 道 in ontology or 德 in  ethics for instance while 善 fits rather well in with ethics. But of course there is still much to be said about how these terms differ from western thought on the subject, but the terminology of ethics and epistemology is well developed and can deal with many different viewpoints of both knowledge and moral values.

 

I both agree and disagree with you here. But my fingers are tired of typing. Next post maybe.

[Taoist Texts]

The text is not a rambling essay on De and what it means; the majority of chapters make no mention of it at all. Even Dao is not the focal point of over half of the chapters. 38 chapters contain no occurrence of either Dao or De. 

Does it mean that these chapters are not about D & D? If so what they are about?

[leth]

Well, yes indeed. So.. that 'De' is mentioned as often as it is does not mean that there are not other concepts running through the text that are named less frequently but that are equally important..?

 

Nor does it mean that your frequency analysis speaks for the idea that the work is not about Dao either.

 

I've put what I would consider the more 'important' / 'meaty' characters in bold. Top 30 (according again to a Word doc I have on my computer):

 

And this list tells us very little about what the work is actually discussing. We can't simply make any sort of judgement on the subject of the work based on word/character frequency. We have to analyse the content itself.

 

Often, but it's not so common that most people are aware of it.

 

It's common amongs academics, but the work is one of the most famous works in human history it and it's name has been impressed on the general public as daodejing. (and confusingly using different transcribing systems aswell)

 

Yes -- it was obviously considered, by some, to be focused around Dao and De, hence the 'title'. I am contesting that these people were wrong

 

This is unclear, are you specifically talking about the Wang Bi edition here? If so what is your argument for it to be so?

 

Whether or not 'Daoism' is focused mainly on Dao and De should not colour our view of the Laozi. When we analyze its concepts we should do so based on their importance in the text, not 'Daoism' as a whole.

 

But what do you mean with laozi? We have to account for the fact that Wang Bi's edition is what we are mostly analysing and thus we cannot really escape early Daoism. We have to analyse it from the context of other texts which belong to the same tradition.

 

OK, but have you engaged in many discussions about 'zhi' in the Laozi specifically? This is the Laozi / DDJ subforum..

 

Yes, perhaps not about the character itself. As i claimed later on in the post zhi is easer to discuss without mentioning it as Zhi specifically. I don't like to use the word virtue for De, and Dao is inherently untranslatable. I've never felt the need to use the term Zhi specifically to describe Daoist thought, though it would perhaps be much more concise if I would. The problem however is that it's not commonly understood by those that don't know any chinese. And that is perhaps another reason why it isn't discussed by itself.

 

It is commonly translated as 'good', but it does not refer strictly to moral goodness. It has a number of layers, and the fact that some think it only means 'morally good' shows how poorly it is understood.

 

Moral goodness, and morally good are not really common terms in ethics. Ethics is a higly complex field in western philosophy aswell, and to narrow it down to only goodness is a gross oversimplification aswell.

[dawei]

Having that said, it would be intersting to see a word frequency count of the Goudian versions.

 

I had done that in the past but not sure I kept it... but a good  source is:

http://forum.daoisopen.com/forum.asp?FORUM_ID=13

 

 

The work is mostly referenced as 'Laozi' in academical works for the very reason that Daodejing is not an orignial title.

 

But neither is Laozi an original title... just anciently common to acribe the work to the author's name.

 

And clearly by the MWD, there are two distinct parts.    The Beida version also denotes those two parts as upper and lower.

 

But the title daodejing was applied because it is considered to have two parts, one which is focused around the subject of Dao and the other which is focused on the subject of De. This is true for the Wang Bi version which in a way has defined how we look at the work. The works history before Wang Bi's version isn't that well know, we know that he did not really author any of the content, but we also don't know much about the origins of the material he used, or how the chapter order and content developed.

 

If we compare the Wang Bi version with what was found in Mawangdui and what was found in Guodian, we'll notice that not only the order and availability of chapters have changed but also to some extent their content. We can't make to many conclusions from this, but it appears that the work seemed to change during the han and pre-han era. But the Wang Bi version seemed to define the work as we now know it. And the work edited by Wang Bi is mostly about Dao and De, but of course it touches many other (and often related) concept.

 

I think there is sufficient understanding that the Heshang Gong version reversed the order with Dao chapters first... and Rudolf Wagner has shown rather convincingly that Wang Bi's version is mostly taken from HSG and that there are actual discrepancies between WB's notes and his received version.  In most cases where they differ, the HSG version appears to have been relied on.   SO one thing seems more certain and that is, we didn't really get what Wang Bi's version to the extent his notes show his deepest thoughts.

[dust]

Does it mean that these chapters are not about D & D?

 

Maybe..

 

 

If so what they are about?

 

The text is about all sorts of things. One can argue that any given chapter necessarily involves Dao and De, whether they are mentioned explicitly or not, but one might also argue that people tend to focus on these terms too much simply because they are considered to be the 'titular' words.

 

 

Nor does it mean that your frequency analysis speaks for the idea that the work is not about Dao either.

 

Oh, it's obviously about 'Dao'. But it's not only about 'Dao'.

 

 

And this list tells us very little about what the work is actually discussing. We can't simply make any sort of judgement on the subject of the work based on word/character frequency. We have to analyse the content itself.

 

You expressed curiosity in the list, I simply provided.

 

But I think that it does offer some bare, elemental evidence about the content of the text. One can read the text and focus on things that one tends to focus on, but a list like this points out that many other things are mentioned just as frequently.

 

民 min 'the people' are mentioned 15 times in the GD -- more than the 聖人 ‘sage’; 惪 De is mentioned 11 times, more than 善 'good'. Doesn't that already illustrate some difference in focus from the modern DDJ?

 

 

It's common amongs academics, but the work is one of the most famous works in human history it and it's name has been impressed on the general public as daodejing. (and confusingly using different transcribing systems aswell)

 

Yes; this is part of the problem that I have.

 

 

This is unclear, are you specifically talking about the Wang Bi edition here? If so what is your argument for it to be so?

 

I am saying that whoever first gave the text the title Dao De Jing was wrong to. Because it's not a classic specifically and purely about Dao and De.

 

 

But what do you mean with laozi? We have to account for the fact that Wang Bi's edition is what we are mostly analysing and thus we cannot really escape early Daoism. We have to analyse it from the context of other texts which belong to the same tradition.

 

But does every discussion of the Laozi have to defer to the greater Daoist tradition? Can't we try and read the text on its own, without interference from later commentators?

 

 

Moral goodness, and morally good are not really common terms in ethics. Ethics is a higly complex field in western philosophy aswell, and to narrow it down to only goodness is a gross oversimplification aswell.

 

Ethics is about 'right' and 'wrong' action. The use of 善 in the text is not always in the context of 'right' or 'wrong'. No?

[flowing hands]

To add my two pence worth here. Lei Erh never called his writings anything when he wrote them down and the order of the chapters were not as they are now. Copies of the writings were taken from the bamboo slithers and then someone (the gatekeeper) decided to compile what he thought was a good collection of the verses. Being A Daoist work, 81 verses were chosen and further copied, the rest were laid aside. Many Chinese pictograms had slightly differing meanings to what they are today. Refinement of the language and the changing of characters is an evolutionary process that still goes on today.

 

'De' meaning 'virtue' is almost missing entirely from my version; it is a misnomer that misguides the naive away from far more reaching understandings. I have only called my version the DDJ, so that people will recognise what it is. Otherwise it must be called differently. Lei Erh lived in a time and was part of a non intellectual Daoist culture, it was an everyday practice for them in terms of spiritual and energy cultivation in living closer to nature and the elements. So his work would be involved with politics, shamanism, observation of nature and natural forces etc.

 

The heart of the verses lies deeply in the culture and understandings of the world 2,500 years ago. There one should try and dwell.

[scribe]

From an unrelated cryptanalysis perspective, I always find linguistic analyses interesting, so thanks for the effort here. I'm particularly struck by 'wu' coming in highly - perhaps it is much easier to describe what something isn't than to say what it is, or should be.

 

Lots of the text also uses comparisons though (this, not that), which will affect the count a fair bit. So counting alone removes the relations between concepts, of course. Similarly, I feel Lao tzu often uses several words to address a single but prominent idea, eg female/mother/valley.

 

Anyway, that's about as far as my thoughts go right now.

[leth]

I had done that in the past but not sure I kept it... but a good  source is:

http://forum.daoisopen.com/forum.asp?FORUM_ID=13

 

A concordance doesn't really help, just feed the work through a word counter. But i don't think it's usefull enough to merit the work even though it's actually very little work with computer to help you.

 

But neither is Laozi an original title... just anciently common to acribe the work to the author's name.

 

No it's not, but it doesn't have a title so we must call it something, and that is the common way to refere to a work of this locality and time period so it makes sense to call it that.

 

And clearly by the MWD, there are two distinct parts.    The Beida version also denotes those two parts as upper and lower.

 

 

I think there is sufficient understanding that the Heshang Gong version reversed the order with Dao chapters first... and Rudolf Wagner has shown rather convincingly that Wang Bi's version is mostly taken from HSG and that there are actual discrepancies between WB's notes and his received version.  In most cases where they differ, the HSG version appears to have been relied on.   SO one thing seems more certain and that is, we didn't really get what Wang Bi's version to the extent his notes show his deepest thoughts.

 

I don't think i follow that last sentance, but i agree at large. But what can be said of Wang Bi's edition is that it became the de facto source of many other verisions and most modern interpretions, aswell as the verison that many commentators throught the history read.

 

And the works history before Wang Bi's edition is shhrouded in mystery.

[leth]

The text is about all sorts of things. One can argue that any given chapter necessarily involves Dao and De, whether they are mentioned explicitly or not, but one might also argue that people tend to focus on these terms too much simply because they are considered to be the 'titular' words.

 

I don't really agree that discussion on Laozi as a work is mostly represented as discussion on Dao and De. I see a lot of comparative work on a multitude of subjects. But I am curious to if ther exists any statistics on the subject of comparative works involving laozi.

 

Oh, it's obviously about 'Dao'. But it's not only about 'Dao'.

 

Yes, but it is a central tenet of the work.

 

But I think that it does offer some bare, elemental evidence about the content of the text. One can read the text and focus on things that one tends to focus on, but a list like this points out that many other things are mentioned just as frequently.

 

 

民 min 'the people' are mentioned 15 times in the GD -- more than the 聖人 ‘sage’; 惪 De is mentioned 11 times, more than 善 'good'. Doesn't that already illustrate some difference in focus from the modern DDJ?

 

I would guess that most mentions of 聖人 or 民 can be said to be statments related to either De or Dao.

 

Yes; this is part of the problem that I have.

 

I suggest you insist on calling it something else than Daodejing yourself then, that is a good path towards changing this misconception.

 

I am saying that whoever first gave the text the title Dao De Jing was wrong to. Because it's not a classic specifically and purely about Dao and De.

 

I'm not so sure, I don't think it is that a bad title of the work, often works are given title that corresponds to the most discussed subjects of a work, but that doesn't necessarily suggest it doesn't mention other subjects.

 

But does every discussion of the Laozi have to defer to the greater Daoist tradition? Can't we try and read the text on its own, without interference from later commentators?

 

We can't really do that without loosing historicity. We could speculate of course. We have clues, but nothing to really say anything with confidence.

 

Ethics is about 'right' and 'wrong' action. The use of 善 in the text is not always in the context of 'right' or 'wrong'. No?

 

Can you give an example of usage of 善 that can't be analysed using ethics?

[Taoist Texts]

The text is about all sorts of things. One can argue that any given chapter necessarily involves Dao and De, whether they are mentioned explicitly or not, but one might also argue that people tend to focus on these terms too much simply because they are considered to be the 'titular' words.

 

 

 

Oh, it's obviously about 'Dao'. But it's not only about 'Dao'.

I am a big fan of analytics so I applaud your approach. But I feel that if you go over those 80+ chapters and identifying the unique keyword for the subject matter of of that chapter, compiled such a list and analyzed that, it would have been so much more fruitful.

[dawei]

I am a big fan of analytics so I applaud your approach. But I feel that if you go over those 80+ chapters and identifying the unique keyword for the subject matter of of that chapter, compiled such a list and analyzed that, it would have been so much more fruitful.

 

I generally agree in the sense that frequency distribution is useful to know what is important... and we have to weed out certain parts of grammar as necessary but meaningless.  

[dust]

I would guess that most mentions of 聖人 or 民 can be said to be statments related to either De or Dao.

 

I'm not so sure. Will try and get back to you on that (when I have the energy to check).

 

 

I suggest you insist on calling it something else than Daodejing yourself then, that is a good path towards changing this misconception.

 

I do tend to refer to it as the Laozi these days.

 

 

Can you give an example of usage of 善 that can't be analysed using ethics?

 

Well, I think we differ over our understanding of "ethics", but:

 

Ch.8 (I will use Legge's translation, but am also looking at Henricks and Wu):

 

上善若水

水善利萬物而不爭

處衆人之所惡

故幾於道

居善地，心善淵，與善仁，言善信，正善治，事善能，動善時

夫唯不爭，故無尤

 

The highest excellence is like (that of) water.

The excellence of water appears in its benefiting all things,

and in its occupying, without striving (to the contrary), the low place which all men dislike.

Hence (its way) is near to (that of) the Dao.

The excellence of a residence is in (the suitability of) the place; that of the mind is in abysmal stillness; that of associations is in their being with the virtuous; that of words is in their trustworthiness; that of government is in its securing good order; that of (the conduct of) affairs is in its ability; and that of (the initiation of) any movement is in its timeliness.

And when (one with the highest excellence) does not wrangle (about his low position), no one finds fault with him.

 

 

The first line is often translated as "The highest good is like that of water" (e.g. Henricks), but I think translators should be more careful; the part that makes repeated use of 善...

 

居善地，心善淵，與善仁，言善信，正善治，事善能，動善時

 

... is suggesting guidelines for conduct, which might be considered 'ethics', but it is not concerned with moral conduct. It is talking not of 'goodness' but of utility.

 

 

Ch.15:

 

古之善為士者

The skilful masters (of the Dao) in old times (Legge)

The one who was skilled at practicing the Way in antiquity (Henricks)

 

 

Ch.27

 

善行無轍迹

善言無瑕讁

善數不用籌策

善閉無關楗而不可開

善結無繩約而不可解

是以聖人

常善救人故無棄人

常善救物故無棄物

是謂襲明

故善人者不善人之師

不善人者善人之資

不貴其師不愛其資

雖智大迷是謂要妙

 

The skilful traveller leaves no traces of his wheels or footsteps;

the skilful speaker says nothing that can be found fault with or blamed;

the skilful reckoner uses no tallies;

the skilful closer needs no bolts or bars, while to open what he has shut will be impossible;

the skilful binder uses no strings or knots, while to unloose what he has bound will be impossible.

In the same way the sage is

always skilful at saving men, and so he does not cast away any man;

he is always skilful at saving things, and so he does not cast away anything.

This is called 'Hiding the light of his procedure.'

Therefore the man of skill is a master (to be looked up to) by him who has not the skill;

and he who has not the skill is the helper of (the reputation of) him who has the skill.

If the one did not honour his master, and the other did not rejoice in his helper,

an (observer), though intelligent, might greatly err about them.

This is called 'The utmost degree of mystery.'

 

 

So... I suppose it will depend on what you classify as "using ethics", but I would suggest that shan is not simply a moral or ethical concept

[dust]

From an unrelated cryptanalysis perspective, I always find linguistic analyses interesting, so thanks for the effort here. I'm particularly struck by 'wu' coming in highly - perhaps it is much easier to describe what something isn't than to say what it is, or should be.

 

I should note that 不 is very high on the list; the top 10 characters overall are:

 

之    248

不    238  bu  (not）

以    164

其    140

而    117

为    114

无    102  wu  （without)

天    92

者    91

人    85

 

 

I won't go into the meaning of each one as many are particles, pronouns, connective words (in other words: not nouns, verbs, etc). But 不, which negates, is the second most common character in the text (& 3rd in Guodian).

 

The use of  无 wu is generally "without". So bu will often say what something isn't, where wu will say what something hasn't.

Edited November 2, 2015 by dustybeijing

[dust]

I am a big fan of analytics so I applaud your approach. But I feel that if you go over those 80+ chapters and identifying the unique keyword for the subject matter of of that chapter, compiled such a list and analyzed that, it would have been so much more fruitful.

 

Probably. This is not my forte...

 

Would it really be straightforward to identify a 'key word' from each chapter?

[Taoist Texts]

While not exactly a keyword, but somebody who was known for his insubordination and his levitation skills  took the trouble of titling the chapters.

 

道经 
　　1. 体道 
　　2. 养身 
　　3. 安民 
　　4. 无源 
　　5. 虚用 
　　6. 成象 
　　7. 韬光 
　　8. 易性 
　　9. 运夷 
　　10. 能为 
　　11. 无用 
　　12. 检欲 
　　13. 厌耻 
　　14. 赞玄 
　　15. 显德 
　　16. 归根 
　　17. 淳风 
　　18. 俗薄 
　　19. 还淳 
　　20. 异俗 
　　21. 虚心 
　　22. 益谦 
　　23. 虚无 
　　24. 苦恩 
　　25. 象元 
　　26. 重德 
　　27. 巧用 
　　28. 反朴 
　　29. 无为 
　　30. 俭武 
　　31. 偃武 
　　32. 圣德 
　　33. 辩德 
　　34. 任成 
　　35. 仁德 
　　36. 微明 
　　37. 为政 

　德经 
　　38. 论德 
　　39. 法本 
　　40. 去用 
　　41. 同异 
　　42. 道化 
　　43. 徧用 
　　44. 立戒 
　　45. 洪德 
　　46. 俭欲 
　　47. 鉴远 
　　48. 忘知 
　　49. 任德 
　　50. 贵生 
　　51. 养德 
　　52. 归元 
　　53. 益证 
　　54. 修观 
　　55. 玄符 
　　56. 玄德 
　　57. 淳风 
　　58. 顺化 
　　59. 守道 
　　60. 居位 
　　61. 谦德 
　　62. 为道 
　　63. 恩始 
　　64. 守微 
　　65. 淳德 
　　66. 后己 
　　67. 三宝 
　　68. 配天 
　　69. 玄用 
　　70. 知难 
　　71. 知病 
　　72. 爱己 
　　73. 任为 
　　74. 制惑 
　　75. 贪损 
　　76. 戒强 
　　77. 天道 
　　78. 任信 
　　79. 任契 
　　80. 独立 
　　81. 显质 

[Taoist Texts]

which,  when applied the magic of excel reveal a mysterious numerology of 

 

First Character Count of First 任 5 淳 3 無 3 玄 3 虛 3 儉 2 守 2 歸 2 為 2 益 2 知 2 顯 2 養 2

 

Second Character Count of Second 德 12 用 6 道 4 為 3 元 2 化 2 己 2 欲 2 武 2 風 2

[dust]

To add my two pence worth here. Lei Erh never called his writings anything when he wrote them down and the order of the chapters were not as they are now. Copies of the writings were taken from the bamboo slithers and then someone (the gatekeeper) decided to compile what he thought was a good collection of the verses. Being A Daoist work, 81 verses were chosen and further copied, the rest were laid aside. Many Chinese pictograms had slightly differing meanings to what they are today. Refinement of the language and the changing of characters is an evolutionary process that still goes on today.

 

'De' meaning 'virtue' is almost missing entirely from my version; it is a misnomer that misguides the naive away from far more reaching understandings. I have only called my version the DDJ, so that people will recognise what it is. Otherwise it must be called differently. Lei Erh lived in a time and was part of a non intellectual Daoist culture, it was an everyday practice for them in terms of spiritual and energy cultivation in living closer to nature and the elements. So his work would be involved with politics, shamanism, observation of nature and natural forces etc.

 

The heart of the verses lies deeply in the culture and understandings of the world 2,500 years ago. There one should try and dwell.

 

I find myself in the unexpected position of being in almost complete agreement with you..!

[dust]

First Character Count of First 任 5 淳 3 無 3 玄 3 虛 3 儉 2 守 2 歸 2 為 2 益 2 知 2 顯 2 養 2

 

Second Character Count of Second 德 12 用 6 道 4 為 3 元 2 化 2 己 2 欲 2 武 2 風 2

 

I like the idea, but am not convinced that these titles are necessarily all fitting/suitable.

 

For example, the character 儉 / 俭 'economical' comes up in the title of 2 chapters, 30 and 46, but is only mentioned in one chapter -- chapter 67; the character 顯 / 显 comes up in 2 titles but is not used at all in the text itself; etc..