Correct words of Patriarchs

[Kar3n]

I'm sure that if I had a great command of the Chinese language, which I don't, I would find a way to make it work.

 

Just a note: On a few occasions I have told someone what I was going to do or what I have already done and they told me that I can't do it. Now really, if I have already done it then it wasn't something impossible for me to do. And if I was only in the planning stage, to be told that I cannot do it is based only on what they think I am capable of without knowing what my true capabilities are.

 

I can't argue the translation but I can argue my understanding.

Yes, what might be hard or impossible for one, can be easy for another. To place every person or being in the same box is an amateur mistake.

 

One of my life's motto has been...

"Tell me I can't; I will show can."

[Wu Ming Jen]

The words written are only words that  point. If one may have similar experience or quantifies a reality for oneself  there is comfort in that.

 

All realities exist at the same time so it is not a case of correct or incorrect. It is the observer that determines the out come or interpretation of words.

 

High vibration understanding does not translate to a lower vibration thought process. so if we get it, the message and not the words then great. I believe Lao Tzu addresses this in his first chapter....words change meaning and the topic is beyond speech. 

[Taoist Texts]

Only an example of Family terms in traditional schools:

 

The translation you provided contains no family terms at all. Yet you call it an example of Family terms in traditional schools.

 

Also

1.  WC is not an old traditional MA school.The earliest known mentions of Wing Chun date to the period of Red Boat Opera (late 1800s).

​2. WC is not Taoism. Lets not change the subject.

 

Also you chose not to answer the question:

 

In chinese a student is called  (dizi 弟子, tudi 徒弟). You assume that 弟 means a brother.

Question: if a teacher has only one student, how is the student called?

Answer: of course he is also called  (dizi 弟子, tudi 徒弟) in absence of any brothers. 

Thus  di 弟 is not a brother, and students are NOT called brothers/sisters.

 

 

Students of the same School are called brothers (sisters in case of women) in Daoism.

 

These are the proper terms for female students:

 女弟子 (LL) a female pupil;

 女弟子 (LL) female disciple.

http://humanum.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/Lexis/Lindict/

They contain 弟子 . Are the female students each  other's brothers?

 

These are the proper terms for nuns:

taoist nun    道姑

imperial nun    皇家尼姑.

nun  修女，尼姑。

http://www.ichacha.net/nun.html

They contain 姑 gu - an aunt, not sister. Are the nuns  each other's aunties?

 

Because some of these terms have no equivalent in foreign languages, they are not easily translated and the descriptiveness is often lost in translation. However, terms such as "Second Uncle" are sometimes used.^%5B2%5D Translating kinship terms from other languages often presents the problem of ambiguity as there is no equivalent general term such as "aunt".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_kinship

 

Question: come on,   lets not split hairs, brother or cousin, what is the difference?

Answer: in the Chinese culture  the difference  is saving face or losing face, life or death.

 

 Emperor Qin Shi Huang (reigned 247 BC–221 BC) declared 

"Those who criticize the present with that of the past: Zu"  (以古非今者族). 

Zu (族) referred to the "extermination of three kindreds" (三族): father, son and grandson. 

...

To this day, a three-character term for "death to the entire family" remains a powerful curse in the Cantonese language.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_kinship#Law

 

Brothers will die, cousins will live. 

Edited February 24, 2017 by Taoist Texts

[silent thunder]

In manners of this ilk, I'm consistently reminded of the old adages.

 

take care when arguing with fools

that they do not drag you down to their level

and beat you with greater experience

 

or it is good to remember that from a distance

in an argument between a fool and a sage

it may not be possible to distinguish

which one is the fool

 

we are not all in agreement

nor should we be

 

we have five senses (at least)

so here is vivid proof that we are not meant to experience the world in just one manner.

[Arkady Shadursky]

Marblehead, kar3n, Wu Ming Jen, thank you for sharing your opinion.
However this thread is not about possibility of oneself to understand everything from books, but about particular translation and its mistakes. And concerning translation we see here 不可 which can be translated no way else but impossible. (literally 不 - not 可 - possible). That is what Yuan Gongfu has written in his passage.

If you'd like to discuss if it is possible to understand everything from books in Traditional Daoism, please welcome to my thread I specially created for that. (http://www.thedaobums.com/topic/43551-understanding-everything-from-daoist-texts/)
 

In chinese a student is called  (dizi 弟子, tudi 徒弟). You assume that 弟 means a brother.
Question: if a teacher has only one student, how is the student called?
Answer: of course he is also called  (dizi 弟子, tudi 徒弟) in absence of any brothers. 
Thus  di 弟 is not a brother, and students are NOT called brothers/sisters.

 

Unfortunately this logic doesn't work here and can't be applied to Chinese reality.
We can discuss a lot about why do we have 师父 but don't have 师妈 and if it is ever possible to be 弟子 without having 师妈 and so on and on. However it has nothing to do with how it really setup in Traditional Schools.

If you would ever been accepted to Traditional School you'd know that disciples are calling each other "brother" or "sister".

BTW, to extend your understanding of Chinese culture and Traditional relationships in the Schools you can read Journey to the West, and check how do disciples of Xuanzang are calling each other ("Brother Pig", "Second Brother", "Elder Brother", "Brother Monkey" etc.)

Anyway latest two posts of you have nothing to do with translating 不可 and the other mistake - treating two different authors as one and calling them twins as you did before.
---
Best Regards,
Arkady

[Marblehead]

Yes, I noticed that you started that new thread and I have already responded to it.

 

And yes, this thread is about the translation from one language to another.  I am at a lose there as I do not read the Chinese.

 

I have already said al I can say regarding this.

 

BTW  I couldn't handle reading "Journey To The West".  Too much Buddhism in it.

[Kar3n]

Marblehead, kar3n, Wu Ming Jen, thank you for sharing your opinion.

However this thread is not about possibility of oneself to understand everything from books, but about particular translation and its mistakes. And concerning translation we see here 不可 which can be translated no way else but impossible. (literally 不 - not 可 - possible). That is what Yuan Gongfu has written in his passage.

 

If you'd like to discuss if it is possible to understand everything from books in Traditional Daoism, please welcome to my thread I specially created for that. (http://www.thedaobums.com/topic/43551-understanding-everything-from-daoist-texts/)

 

 

Unfortunately this logic doesn't work here and can't be applied to Chinese reality.

We can discuss a lot about why do we have 师父 but don't have 师妈 and if it is ever possible to be 弟子 without having 师妈 and so on and on. However it has nothing to do with how it really setup in Traditional Schools.

 

If you would ever been accepted to Traditional School you'd know that disciples are calling each other "brother" or "sister".

 

BTW, to extend your understanding of Chinese culture and Traditional relationships in the Schools you can read Journey to the West, and check how do disciples of Xuanzang are calling each other ("Brother Pig", "Second Brother", "Elder Brother", "Brother Monkey" etc.)

Anyway latest two posts of you have nothing to do with translating 不可 and the other mistake - treating two different authors as one and calling them twins as you did before.

---

Best Regards,

Arkady

You have said the same thing over and over again, in many threads, regarding this translation. You seem to be very attached to being right and proving another wrong, which is the sole purpose of this thread and others. Additionally, I believe it to be the reason you became a member of TDB. It coincided with opendao's suspension perfectly. You have been asked not to do this on several occasions. You need to state your case and move on without using another member's name, attaching labels to them or making accusations in such a repetitive fashion. Why do you continue to do this?

 

Have you given thought to how other traditions and practices have evolved over time? Take for instance the Bible teachings- the Old Testament and the New Testament, Buddhism and the turnings of the dharma wheel and how Buddha's teaching evolved with each turning.

 

What is the first language of the person who did the translation? Chinese, Russian, English? If not what is it? I think there is something lost here between the meanings of words in different languages. I am willing to sit down and explore the differences of the meaning the words in all languages involved to hopefully settle this ongoing dispute or at the very least find some common ground.

[dawei]

but about particular translation and its mistakes. And concerning translation we see here 不可 which can be translated no way else but impossible. (literally 不 - not 可 - possible). That is what Yuan Gongfu has written in his passage.

 

The first professional and full translation of the work I found does not use the word 'impossible'... so I find any discussion on the matter impossible...    You should accept that this is how you would translate it but others may not.

[Marblehead]

And besides, to say that it is impossible for me to experience something I have already experienced is a null statement.

 

(I wish I could go there more often than I do thought.  Too many worldly concerns, I guess.)

[Mudfoot]

 

BTW  I couldn't handle reading "Journey To The West".  Too much Buddhism in it.

BTW  I couldn't handle reading "Journey To The West".  Too much Buddhism in it.

 

Like saying chocolate is too chocolaty

[Brian]

 

 

Like saying chocolate is too chocolaty

If you don't like chocolate, it is.

[Taoist Texts]

Unfortunately this logic doesn't work here and can't be applied to Chinese reality.

 

Logic can't be applied to reality. I like that. It is deep.

 

If you would ever been accepted to Traditional School you'd know that disciples are calling each other "brother" or "sister".

May be in your fantasies).

 

 

TW, to extend your understanding of Chinese culture and Traditional relationships in the Schools you can read Journey to the West, and check how do disciples of Xuanzang are calling each other ("Brother Pig", "Second Brother", "Elder Brother", "Brother Monkey" etc.)---

 

Well, when the opponent's last resort is the fraternization between the talking pigs and flying monkeys in a fairy tale, it is time to leave him alone with his fantasies.

 

4 concluding remarks, though:

 

1.  On this planet, addressing another male as 'brother' is a universal practice. It has nothing to do with schools.

2.  The characters in the novel, as is the chinese wont, swore to become brothers because they liked each other. It has nothing to do with them being buddhist (zoomorphic lol) monks.

3. Why would a neidaneer be so  insistent on a school brotherhood? This psycho-manipulation tool is called 'imaginary kinship'. It does wonders for any commercial organization. But specifically in neidan, such kinship provides a hope that the master will share his secrets with his imaginary sons and daughter to the detriment of his real family.  Poor lost souls, little they know that blood is thicker than water. Imaginary water at that, hehe).

4. In the chinese reality, becoming a disciple involves  出家  chujia leaving the family. The neidaneers claim that it means leaving one family to join another. They are funny.)

 

Anyway...

 

[Taoist Texts]

 BTW  I couldn't handle reading "Journey To The West".  Too much Buddhism in it.

 

Except that chapter with the evil taoists lol.

[Arkady Shadursky]

The first professional and full translation of the work I found does not use the word 'impossible'... so I find any discussion on the matter impossible...    You should accept that this is how you would translate it but others may not.

 

Could you please provide the link to this translation?

I never seen professional translation of Yuan Gongfu text available.

 

Or could it be you are mixing up Yuan Gongfu's and Zhang Boduan's texts? Yuan Gongfu in his commentary slightly changed Zhang Boduan's words.

 

In original Zhang Boduan's text there is no 不可 - impossible. While in Yuan Gongfu's commentary we see 不可 - impossible.

 

 

Have you given thought to how other traditions and practices have evolved over time? Take for instance the Bible teachings- the Old Testament and the New Testament, Buddhism and the turnings of the dharma wheel and how Buddha's teaching evolved with each turning.

 

Yes teachings are changing over time. Lets consider Christian Teaching and its "evolution":

 

1.  Initially God was speaking directly to people, there were miracles happening... There was Edem in the end!

    

2.  Later the Christianity has changed. God hasn't shown himself but luckily (for us) Jesus came and he was able to rise people from the dead.

    

3.  Later (lets say medieval period) the Christianity has changed again. There were no more persons like Jesus but "at least" there were Saints who were making miracles and heal people.

    

4.  And nowadays the Christianity has "evolved" even more. A lot of traditional values are being "upgraded" to fit modern society. And now we can see neither Saints nor miracles anymore.

 

So - yes the teaching may change over time. That's for sure. However the results of practicing it may change as well.

 

Isn't there a saying in Bible "By their fruit you will recognize them"? The analogy is quite clear. Fruit and result mean the same...

 

We believe - (considering the human structure hasn't changed) if we want to achieve same results as Patriarchs of the Past the only thing we need to do is to practice the same methods they did. It is what we are researching in DaoDe Center, what we are seeking for in our numerous travels to Chinese heartland.

 

Additionally, I believe it to be the reason you became a member of TDB.

 

Of course it's not, kar3n. It pains me to hear you make such accusations when my only concern is for spreading the Dao Teaching. I'd like to answer you separately in the other thread so nobody has doubts in this respect any more. Please follow the link: http://www.thedaobums.com/topic/43568-the-goal/

 

 

What is the first language of the person who did the translation? Chinese, Russian, English? If not what is it? I think there is something lost here between the meanings of words in different languages. I am willing to sit down and explore the differences of the meaning the words in all languages involved to hopefully settle this ongoing dispute or at the very least find some common ground.

 

That would be invaluable contribution! I'm looking forward to have a look at your research.

I don't think the first language matters much. Discussing it would be labeling the translator, I'd prefer to avoid it.

---

Best Regards,

Arkady

[Arkady Shadursky]

 Logic can't be applied to reality. 

 

Usually people learn how to apply logic to reality in high school. In our world it is a basement for any further education / learning / understanding / discussion.

 

For me this phrase is a pointer how should I treat the entire post...

---

Arkady

[Taoist Texts]

In original Zhang Boduan's text there is no 不可 - impossible. 

 

Finally, lol).

 

 

See, they admit it eventually.

 

There is no 'impossible' for a reason. Because that's why he wrote the book. To make it possible.

[Kar3n]

 

Yes teachings are changing over time. Lets consider Christian Teaching and its "evolution":

 

1.  Initially God was speaking directly to people, there were miracles happening... There was Edem in the end!

    

2.  Later the Christianity has changed. God hasn't shown himself but luckily (for us) Jesus came and he was able to rise people from the dead.

    

3.  Later (lets say medieval period) the Christianity has changed again. There were no more persons like Jesus but "at least" there were Saints who were making miracles and heal people.

    

4.  And nowadays the Christianity has "evolved" even more. A lot of traditional values are being "upgraded" to fit modern society. And now we can see neither Saints nor miracles anymore.

 

So - yes the teaching may change over time. That's for sure. However the results of practicing it may change as well.

 

Isn't there a saying in Bible "By their fruit you will recognize them"? The analogy is quite clear. Fruit and result mean the same...

 

---

Best Regards,

Arkady

 

There are occurrences of unexplained phenomena that some would call miracles everyday. Are there any Jesus(es) currently walking around raising the dead, giving blind men sight or tuning loaves of bread into fish and water into wine for a multitude? No, not that I am aware of. How many modern day Taoist immortals do you currently know?

 

Yes, Jesus does say in Matthew 7:16, "Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?" He also says in the same chapter in verses 1-5, "Judge not, that ye be not judged. 2)For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. 3)And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? 4)Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? 5)Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."

 

Have you pondered the thought that you might be unfairly judging others based on your beliefs and interpretations and that you can be judged (questioned) in the same manner?

 

In verse 16, Jesus is talking about false prophets and how to recognize them. Odd that you would quote such a scripture or the words of Jesus at all when the fruit you have put forth and the manner in which you have treated forum members seems to be against the very words of Jesus earlier in the teaching (Sermon on the Mount) you quote from. I offer you Matthew 5:7-9 to consider. Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. 8)Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God. 9)Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

 

How are we to distinguish on TDB who the false prophet is? Is it by the fruit that they bear or their stated goals?

 

 

As far I've got direct accusation, I want to openly answer it and clarify my position.

 

My goal of being here is the spreading of Traditional Daoism (Ancient Dao). Showing it from every perspective and helping fellow members to find out more about it. 

...

Have you really done that thus far? I ask you to think about the fruit that you have borne on TDB. Is it really about any other perspective than your own and that of your institution?

 

...

 

That would be invaluable contribution! I'm looking forward to have a look at your research.

I don't think the first language matters much. Discussing it would be labeling the translator, I'd prefer to avoid it.

---

Best Regards,

Arkady

 

Without knowing the mother tongue of the translator it will be impossible for me to provide thorough research because it is a vital part of the equation and my approach in obtaining a better understanding of the differences in the translation based on word usage and semantics.

 

It is odd that you are worried about labeling the translator; you have so generously placed labels on translators you disagree with. My intent is not to label your translator, but to close the gap some and find some common ground, however I must ask... Labels are judicious for some, but not for others? 

[Taoist Texts]

  Are you pointing  ... That non-Chinese could not understand ancient Chinese better than Chinese?

 

(sigh)

 

 

Usually people learn how to apply logic to reality in high school. In our world it is a basement for any further education / learning / understanding / discussion.

 

Basement

A basement or cellar is one or more floors of a building that are either completely or partially below the ground floor. Wikipedia

 

Yep.

[damdao]

Definition of basement

1. 1

2. 3:  the lowest or fundamental part of something; specifically :  the rocks underlying stratified rocks

Origin and Etymology of basement

1base or 2base + -ment, probably after Italian basamento

 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/basement

 

 

[Taoist Texts]

numerous mistakes may appear:  1) Words of Wu Chongxu and his brother Wu Shouxu are mixed here into one heap, attributing both to one person - "author Wu" (see in red).  as "Taoist Texts" guessed later:

 

伍沖虛還有一個堂弟，即是號為真陽子的伍守虛，在傳承上他是伍沖虛的師弟，他和伍守陽同注過《天仙正理》，他們兄弟二人的成就是聯繫在一起，世人提起伍柳派時，所謂的“伍”即是同時指沖虛、守虛二人

 

 

by A.A.Khokhlov

 the other mistake - treating two different authors as one 

 

 

 

The neidan team has repeatedly leveled a grave and unjust accusation:) of inappropriately referring to the two Wus as one at me.

It nearly hurt my feelings, lol, when  a quote provided by them perked me right back up:)

 

 

世人提起伍柳派時，所謂的“伍”即是同時指沖虛、守虛二人

 

The contemporaries, when mentioning the Wuliu sect, called them just "Wu", by that at the same time referring to 沖虛、守虛, Chōng xū, shǒu xū, the both of them

 

Meaning, the very quote they have provided themselves gives lie to their accusations.

 

It is fascinating, really.

[Mudfoot]

O ajajajaj buff,

O ajajajaj buff,

O ajajajaj buff buff

O ajajajaj buff.

 

Feeling sleepy?

Then you are either a troll or you are bored to tears with how this thread have developed.

 

(I am sure at least Rocky Lionmouth gets this joke, it is culture-bound)

[Taoist Texts]

 are bored to tears    (I am sure  

I feel your pain bro, here watch this quick. It this does not entertain you, nothing will.

 

Edited March 3, 2017 by Taoist Texts

[Mudfoot]

[Arkady Shadursky]

 

<...>
inappropriately referring to the two Wus as one at me.
<...>

If one is reading the entire book and there is a phrase "Wu said" by context it is obvious which Wu had said it. But putting this phrase without context not commenting whose are these words - is a translator failure.

 

Anyway we are happy that now you do know that Wu Chongxu and Wu Shouxu are two different man - school brothers and cousins and neither a single author nor twin brothers as you guessed erlier

(

http://www.thedaobums.com/topic/43462-correct-words-of-patriarchs/page-1#entry738652

http://www.thedaobums.com/topic/43034-correcting-some-misinterpretations/page-1#entry730239

).

 

This actually is for sure constructive for the community  .

 

So do you recognize that translating 不可 as "hard to" is false?
---
Best Regards,
Arkady

[Taoist Texts]

So do you recognize that translating 不可 as "hard to" is false?

No, but i recognize that you do not have the required  language skills   to maintain even a beginner-level debate about these matters. 

 

不可多得

bù kě duō dé

hard to come by

 

https://chinese.yabla.com/chinese-english-pinyin-dictionary.php?define=%E4%B8%8D%E5%8F%AF%E5%A4%9A%E5%BE%97

 

 You are embarrassing yourself really.