DDC Chapter 6: 谷神不死是谓玄牝。

[Eric Woon]

On ‎3‎/‎20‎/‎2018 at 12:47 AM, Marblehead said:

Okay.  Back to this.

 

Of the Chuang Tzu, the text attributed to a person named Chuang Tzu, there are three sections to the Chuang Tzu; Inner Chapters (1-7), attributed directly to a person named Chuang Tzu; Outer Chapters (8-22), attributed to followers/students of Chuang Tzu; and Miscellaneous Chapters (23-33), attributed to various un-named individuals.

 

Many years ago I did a concordance of the work of the TTC and Chuang Tzu.  Because of something you have already mentioned I ended up with 119 Chapters.  The way I constructed it was to take a concept from the Tao Te Ching (not necessarily a complete chapter) and then followed that up with supporting sections from the Chuang Tzu.

 

The only area where Chuang Tzu had little or nothing to say to what was in the TTC was where Lao Tzu talked about government.  Chuang Tzu didn't say many nice things about government, and from my perspective, considering Chuang Tzu to have been an Anarchist, I can understand him not saying anything.

 

It is my opinion that if one has read only the TTC and not the Chuang Tzu one misses much of the meaning in the TTC.

 

Of the standard 81 chapters, 12 chapters relate to God and how He created the universe and some other post-creation information. The remaining 61 chapters wrote able leadership principles (government, as you say) and moral principles. Going by the same manner as in the Bible whether each book is divided into many chapters and lines. I did something similar. That is break it up by either full sentence or clause, I landed with 240 leadership principles and 67 moral principles. Among the 12 chapters that talks about God, I manage something like 36 mentions. I went on to label them as LP1, 2...240; MP1, 2...67. UC1,...36. These three abbreviations are: LP = Leadership Principles; MP = Moral Principles and UC = Universe Creation. I fully agree with you, Zhuangzi did not mention anything about those chapters that discuss Leadership Principles or Moral Principles. For example, the shortest chapter 40, has only 21 words. It describes Leadership Principles.     

[Eric Woon]

On ‎3‎/‎20‎/‎2018 at 12:41 AM, Stosh said:

The Laoists diverged from the original mystical traditions , just as you pointed out Christianity diverged from the Old Judeo tradition of being the exclusively 'chosen people' to being an open option. This made Christianity a handy vehicle for Rome to be inclusive of its many provinces , but unifying everybody on the same page. 

There is nothing mystical about DDJ. Most of us could not read Victorian Shakespeare's English; almost none of the Chinese can read DDJ, which is 2500 years old. Initially, I cannot read DDJ too. It took me 13 years to slowly research on what each of the 5254 words means in those days, 2500 years ago. This is a painstaking, word by word, extremely slow process. What I meant here is, I am a 道家 (Dao Jia)， meaning, the study of DDJ as a school of philosophy. The other branch is 道教 （dao jiao） or Taoism (English) which is a religion akin to Christianity.   

[Marblehead]

My compliments to you for doing the work.

 

I give most of my attention to the verses that speak to moral principles.

 

I am going to let go of being rubbed poorly when you use the word "God" instead of "Tao".  Different strokes for different folks.

 

 

[dawei]

On 3/19/2018 at 12:36 PM, Eric Woon said:

It is okay for you to put your view across. Btw, to the best that I understand the early Chinese as far back as 4172 years ago, they did believe in a Creator of Heaven and Earth, and they called Him, Shangdi. In the 17th century, an Italian Jesuit borrowed this phrase Shangdi when he translated Deus (God) into the Chinese language. Perhaps, he found it best to use an old phrase that was not used since Emperor Qin Shihuang banned it around (206 B.C.).   

 

I agree they called him Shangdi... not Dao ... and used that as the basis for God   

 

I thought the oracle bones had 'Di'...  might have to look that up.   So later, they expanded this as a compound as opposed to making a shorthand.  (Did same thing for Xi Wang Mu... she is simply Xi in the oracle bones).

 

There is also a constellation origin to Di which I have written about somewhere here.. but lost among all the stars (threads).  

 

Added:  This is an article although what I have referenced was different but seems both use the same source, regarding Di:

 

https://www.quora.com/Are-there-Chinese-characters-derived-from-constellations

 

Ok.. found my reference:

 

http://www.lehigh.edu/~dwp0/Assets/images/INSAP IV BEIJI copy.pdf

 

 

[dawei]

23 minutes ago, Eric Woon said:

What I meant here is, I am a 道家 (Dao Jia)， meaning, the study of DDJ as a school of philosophy. The other branch is 道教 （dao jiao） or Taoism (English) which is a religion akin to Christianity.   

 

Oh boy.. don't get some of us started on this [so-called] distinction !   

 

Added TDB threads for reference:

 

Classical Daoism is there really such a thing

 

What Defines a Daoist

[Marblehead]

I just set up an ignore function so that any post that contains the word "God" the post is automatically ignored.

 

[Eric Woon]

On ‎3‎/‎21‎/‎2018 at 11:37 PM, Marblehead said:

My compliments to you for doing the work.

 

I give most of my attention to the verses that speak to moral principles.

 

I am going to let go of being rubbed poorly when you use the word "God" instead of "Tao".  Different strokes for different folks.

 

 

We beg to differ. That is perfectly alright. 

[Eric Woon]

On ‎3‎/‎21‎/‎2018 at 11:44 PM, dawei said:

 

I agree they called him Shangdi... not Dao ... and used that as the basis for God   

 

I thought the oracle bones had 'Di'...  might have to look that up.   So later, they expanded this as a compound as opposed to making a shorthand.  (Did same thing for Xi Wang Mu... she is simply Xi in the oracle bones).

 

There is also a constellation origin to Di which I have written about somewhere here.. but lost among all the stars (threads).  

 

Added:  This is an article although what I have referenced was different but seems both use the same source, regarding Di:

 

https://www.quora.com/Are-there-Chinese-characters-derived-from-constellations

 

Ok.. found my reference:

 

http://www.lehigh.edu/~dwp0/Assets/images/INSAP IV BEIJI copy.pdf

 

 

Dawei, this should be the original Chinese version. To those who do not read Chinese, the link given by Dawei is quite a good translation, but lacking in depth. For example, the word  “帝” is derived from the word “蒂” which means bud. This word has an intent to infer that the beginning of all things in Heaven and Earth begins in the like of a flower bud.

在商朝的甲骨卜辞中，就已经有了“帝”这个字，据近代学者王国维的考证，“帝”是“蒂”的初字，即花蒂之蒂，即万物之始。于是，商朝的商民族就用这个字来尊称他们的始祖神。而在神人合一的时代，始祖神也就是至尊神，即是民族之始祖，又是众神之主，所以又被称为“上帝”。

    

[Eric Woon]

On ‎3‎/‎21‎/‎2018 at 11:44 PM, dawei said:

 

I agree they called him Shangdi... not Dao ... and used that as the basis for God   

 

I thought the oracle bones had 'Di'...  might have to look that up.   So later, they expanded this as a compound as opposed to making a shorthand.  (Did same thing for Xi Wang Mu... she is simply Xi in the oracle bones).

 

There is also a constellation origin to Di which I have written about somewhere here.. but lost among all the stars (threads).  

 

Added:  This is an article although what I have referenced was different but seems both use the same source, regarding Di:

 

https://www.quora.com/Are-there-Chinese-characters-derived-from-constellations

 

Ok.. found my reference:

 

http://www.lehigh.edu/~dwp0/Assets/images/INSAP IV BEIJI copy.pdf

 

 

Let's leave it here. I have my good reasons to infer that dao refers to God. Let the later translations prove this point. Not at this juncture.

[Eric Woon]

On ‎3‎/‎21‎/‎2018 at 11:45 PM, dawei said:

 

Oh boy.. don't get some of us started on this [so-called] distinction !   

 

Added TDB threads for reference:

 

Classical Daoism is there really such a thing

 

What Defines a Daoist

This could be a rude awakening, though. Among the Chinese (mainland and in Taiwan), they make a very clear distinction between these two phrases,  道家 and 道教. In fact, most of the scholars are 道家, the school of philosophy. The majority of the uneducated or lesser educated Chinese are mere followers of 道教, the religious practice that has its origin at around the later part Eastern Han period (the second century AD). I am afraid, you might have to clear your mind, which side are you on. Read DDJ from a philosophical perspective or read it from a religious point of view? 

 

To rub salt into wounds, I might have to tell you in advance, the religious perspective of Taoism as a religion, does not (or did not) borrow more than 10% of DDJ (around 500 words) to kick start a religious practice. Up until today, dao as a religion (Taoism, as the West would like to call it) evolved around, and had muddled through these 500 words, for almost two thousands years. As a religion, it could not muscle in the philosophy (a whole set of 260 leadership principles and 67 moral principles) that were laid down by Lao Zi.   

[Eric Woon]

On ‎3‎/‎22‎/‎2018 at 12:17 AM, Marblehead said:

I just set up an ignore function so that any post that contains the word "God" the post is automatically ignored.

 

If this is your decision. then the discussion of DDJ is meaningless. Are we looking forward to understand what was in Lao Zi's mind when he wrote DDJ? Or simply, DDJ must go in-line with your line of thought?  That is, rule out the discussion of the possibility that Lao Zi actually used the word, dao in DDJ to describe God.

[Eric Woon]

27 minutes ago, Eric Woon said:

Dawei, this should be the original Chinese version. To those who do not read Chinese, the link given by Dawei is quite a good translation, but lacking in depth. For example, the word  “帝” is derived from the word “蒂” which means bud. This word has an intent to infer that the beginning of all things in Heaven and Earth begins in the like of a flower bud.

在商朝的甲骨卜辞中，就已经有了“帝”这个字，据近代学者王国维的考证，“帝”是“蒂”的初字，即花蒂之蒂，即万物之始。于是，商朝的商民族就用这个字来尊称他们的始祖神。而在神人合一的时代，始祖神也就是至尊神，即是民族之始祖，又是众神之主，所以又被称为“上帝”。

    

Dawei, to answer your comment that it is also a constellation origin of di, here are some of my research findings. I am sorry, I could not translate them into English. These are very old classical Chinese. It is very difficult to translate. Btw, I do not have the time on had at this juncture.  

1）请参考《礼记·礼运》：“必本于太一，分而为天地，转而为阴阳，变而为四时。”其注：“太，音泰。”疏：“太一者，谓天地未分混沌之元气也。”

2）《呂氏春秋．大乐》：“道也者，至精也，不可为形，不可为名，強为之名，谓之太一。”于此，可以用它来很直接地解释“道”是“太一”，然后，很清淡又写意地给“太一”一个名字，叫“上帝”。

 

3）中国古代上帝信仰有两种起源：其一，是对“天”（天空、宇宙）的崇拜；其二，是对北极星（北辰、帝星）的崇拜。太一，又作太乙、泰一，原是中国古代天文学中的星名，即北极星，后成为先秦汉民间信仰的最高神明，奉为天帝，相当於上帝。知识份子則把太一哲学化，想像为永恒不变的法則，即“道”，或宇宙的本源。

 

4）《晉书‧天文志》：太一星在天一南，相近，亦天帝神也，主使十六神，知風雨水旱、兵革饥馑、疾疫災害所在之国也。“太一”，是“天神之最尊贵者”。

[Marblehead]

52 minutes ago, Eric Woon said:

If this is your decision. then the discussion of DDJ is meaningless. Are we looking forward to understand what was in Lao Zi's mind when he wrote DDJ? Or simply, DDJ must go in-line with your line of thought?  That is, rule out the discussion of the possibility that Lao Zi actually used the word, dao in DDJ to describe God.

There is no such option for me to invoke.  Just messing with you.

 

My primary opposition to the use of "God" in the TTC is that it is so tempting after that to personify this "God" that we created.  We, at least most of us, acknowledge that Tao is beyond defining.  That's the way it should remain.

 

My guide for clarification of verbiage in the TTC is Robert Henricks' translation.

 

What you are defining as "God", in my understanding, is when Henricks translated the Chinese character as Tao.  Other times he translated it as "Way".

 

I just don't see why it is necessary to translate the Chinese character to "God" when there is already the word "Tao" which, if viewed from a certain perspective, is the God-seed for all essences - both manifest and potential (wu and yu).

 

And to say that Lao Tzu meant to say "God" but didn't or he forgot is not acceptable, in my opinion.  Nor is adding characters to the original Ma-wang-tui text.

 

Nor is it valid to suggest that he just left things out assuming that we would understand what he wanted to say.  If the information about him is valid, he was a rather educated man.  He was likely amongst the top 1% of Chinese people regarding reading and writing Chinese.

 

Now granted, it was written in poem manner so he had to write it in the acceptable Chinese poetic manner.  I feel very comfortable thinking that Chuang Tzu filled in the empty spaces where Lao Tzu couldn't expound on what he said.  And to my recall Chuang Tzu never used the word "Tao" in and manner that could be regarded as equal to the common definition of "God".

 

 

 

[Stosh]

On 3/21/2018 at 11:33 AM, Eric Woon said:

There is nothing mystical about DDJ. Most of us could not read Victorian Shakespeare's English; almost none of the Chinese can read DDJ, which is 2500 years old. Initially, I cannot read DDJ too. It took me 13 years to slowly research on what each of the 5254 words means in those days, 2500 years ago. This is a painstaking, word by word, extremely slow process. What I meant here is, I am a 道家 (Dao Jia)， meaning, the study of DDJ as a school of philosophy. The other branch is 道教 （dao jiao） or Taoism (English) which is a religion akin to Christianity.   

Its hard to understand your overall point in this post.

Am I to take it you essentially agree, that going all the way back to Shang dynasty and beyond,  there were those who believed in gods, Gods which had names already ? That much later a philosophical branch evolved out from those original beginnings and leaning on the teachings of Lao ? And that alongside this philosophically oriented group , there is another group which is believing of that which is mystical , gods and so forth? which still exists?

 Because that is in fact what I indicated , right? 

 

You see, the confusing part is why you would consider the ,more educated , less numerous, Daojia , to be wrong for two thousand years. That , they couldn't read the Chinese language of their own era. That the DDJ explicitly says , in their language , the name of a Supreme god , and yet they decided that they would consider the texts not to be mystical and religious, but in fact philosophical. 

You say that , in China , this is a very clear distinction , so this is not, in your view , a subtle departure of opinion. 

Frankly I don't see how 1) one can reconcile , a sentence like "The humble, open-minded and receptive God incessantly nourishes the livelihood of all forms of life and He does not drop this role. Let’s call Him ‘Xuanpin'[1]."  with the idea "There is nothing mystical about DDJ. "

You clearly differentiate religious reading from philosophical ." The other branch is 道教 （dao jiao） or Taoism (English) which is a religion akin to Christianity. " 

2) How is it they were not able to read their own language ? and why would they not use the name of the god they already had? 

Is "Xuanpin" a proper name for the god which appears in some other text , maybe in conjunction with some pre Laoist symbol .. something like that ? Maybe a poem ? 

[dawei]

8 hours ago, Eric Woon said:

This could be a rude awakening, though. Among the Chinese (mainland and in Taiwan), they make a very clear distinction between these two phrases,  道家 and 道教. In fact, most of the scholars are 道家, the school of philosophy. The majority of the uneducated or lesser educated Chinese are mere followers of 道教, the religious practice that has its origin at around the later part Eastern Han period (the second century AD). I am afraid, you might have to clear your mind, which side are you on. Read DDJ from a philosophical perspective or read it from a religious point of view? 

 

To rub salt into wounds, I might have to tell you in advance, the religious perspective of Taoism as a religion, does not (or did not) borrow more than 10% of DDJ (around 500 words) to kick start a religious practice. Up until today, dao as a religion (Taoism, as the West would like to call it) evolved around, and had muddled through these 500 words, for almost two thousands years. As a religion, it could not muscle in the philosophy (a whole set of 260 leadership principles and 67 moral principles) that were laid down by Lao Zi.   

 

What folks do today doesn't imply that is what they did in 300 BC

 

But if christiantiy is any example, schism happen

 

I read it from Both/And... or from every side or no side.   Sides don't matter to me in this regard.  

 

I'm not a daoist, so such things are not of any personal concern but I'm willing to discuss such things. 

[Taoist Texts]

10 hours ago, Eric Woon said:

For example, the word  “帝” is derived from the word “蒂” which means bud. This word has an intent to infer that the beginning of all things in Heaven and Earth begins in the like of a flower bud.

“帝”是“蒂”的初字

your Chinese quote says, it is the other way around : bud is derived from “帝”.

 

In reality though, “帝” is depicting a central column and the panoply of a primitive dwelling such as a tent, and is derived from a "tree" character.

 

 

http://www.vividict.com/WordInfo.aspx?id=1733

 

[Eric Woon]

11 hours ago, Taoist Texts said:

your Chinese quote says, it is the other way around : bud is derived from “帝”.

 

In reality though, “帝” is depicting a central column and the panoply of a primitive dwelling such as a tent, and is derived from a "tree" character.

 

 

http://www.vividict.com/WordInfo.aspx?id=1733

 

You are right. Except that the bud 蒂 has a double cross on top which denote grass as in Chinese. 

[Eric Woon]

20 hours ago, Marblehead said:

There is no such option for me to invoke.  Just messing with you.

 

My primary opposition to the use of "God" in the TTC is that it is so tempting after that to personify this "God" that we created.  We, at least most of us, acknowledge that Tao is beyond defining.  That's the way it should remain.

 

My guide for clarification of verbiage in the TTC is Robert Henricks' translation.

 

What you are defining as "God", in my understanding, is when Henricks translated the Chinese character as Tao.  Other times he translated it as "Way".

 

I just don't see why it is necessary to translate the Chinese character to "God" when there is already the word "Tao" which, if viewed from a certain perspective, is the God-seed for all essences - both manifest and potential (wu and yu).

 

And to say that Lao Tzu meant to say "God" but didn't or he forgot is not acceptable, in my opinion.  Nor is adding characters to the original Ma-wang-tui text.

 

Nor is it valid to suggest that he just left things out assuming that we would understand what he wanted to say.  If the information about him is valid, he was a rather educated man.  He was likely amongst the top 1% of Chinese people regarding reading and writing Chinese.

 

Now granted, it was written in poem manner so he had to write it in the acceptable Chinese poetic manner.  I feel very comfortable thinking that Chuang Tzu filled in the empty spaces where Lao Tzu couldn't expound on what he said.  And to my recall Chuang Tzu never used the word "Tao" in and manner that could be regarded as equal to the common definition of "God".

 

 

 

Btw, Lao Zi is 2600 years by now. It is very difficult to understand what was this theme for DDJ in the first place. Least so, to pick on a particular word, dao. For example, Zhuangzi picked up two words wu wei and gave it a very different meaning as supposed to be an abbreviation of five words, where the last four characters forms a Chinese proverb. Shall we say, Zhuang Zi is wrong? If I insist, you might want me to prove it. This is not difficult, though. But to prove Dao is God, it is much more difficult.  There is a humongous wall of 50 million strong CCP members who are all atheists. They would never accept dao is God. I am facing this problem now. Lao Zi, to them is the wisest Chinese philosopher of all, and they hold him in much higher regards than Confucius! Sine the Cultural Revolution in the 1960s, Confucius has been thumbed down for at least half a century by now. 

[Eric Woon]

17 hours ago, Stosh said:

Its hard to understand your overall point in this post.

Am I to take it you essentially agree, that going all the way back to Shang dynasty and beyond,  there were those who believed in gods, Gods which had names already ? That much later a philosophical branch evolved out from those original beginnings and leaning on the teachings of Lao ? And that alongside this philosophically oriented group , there is another group which is believing of that which is mystical , gods and so forth? which still exists?

 Because that is in fact what I indicated , right? 

 

You see, the confusing part is why you would consider the ,more educated , less numerous, Daojia , to be wrong for two thousand years. That , they couldn't read the Chinese language of their own era. That the DDJ explicitly says , in their language , the name of a Supreme god , and yet they decided that they would consider the texts not to be mystical and religious, but in fact philosophical. 

You say that , in China , this is a very clear distinction , so this is not, in your view , a subtle departure of opinion. 

Frankly I don't see how 1) one can reconcile , a sentence like "The humble, open-minded and receptive God incessantly nourishes the livelihood of all forms of life and He does not drop this role. Let’s call Him ‘Xuanpin'[1]."  with the idea "There is nothing mystical about DDJ. "

You clearly differentiate religious reading from philosophical ." The other branch is 道教 （dao jiao） or Taoism (English) which is a religion akin to Christianity. " 

2) How is it they were not able to read their own language ? and why would they not use the name of the god they already had? 

Is "Xuanpin" a proper name for the god which appears in some other text , maybe in conjunction with some pre Laoist symbol .. something like that ? Maybe a poem ? 

DDJ is mystical because partly,  it discussed about Shangdi. This is the Archilles' heel that made DDJ fits in as a Scripture. Therefore, it is tough to put my point across that it is not mystical. Frankly, I accept your argument. However, when you had deciphered all the related 12 chapters, having understood what he wrote, it clears up, and is no longer mystifying.  These are Chapter 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 14, 25, 39, 42, 52, 62 and 67. I  beg your pardon. I am about to carry out final editing two weeks later for the English translations. Personally, I would not like to discuss about God, and its whatever messages related the creation of the universe. It is not useful at all. Btw, I was a management cum leadership consultant before I started writing. Therefore, in my eyes, the leadership principles and moral principles have great value. Not these mystical stuff expounded in the above-mentioned 12 chapters.  I would like to drop the discussion about dao being God and Taoism, the religious aspect which does not hold water (since it picked a few hundred words (much less than 500 words, indeed) of DDJ and went on to make a big claim that their religion is based on DDJ. This proclamation is not convincing at all! I want to focus purely on daojia, that's its philosophy.    

[Stosh]

1 minute ago, Eric Woon said:

DDJ is mystical because partly,  it discussed about Shangdi. This is the Archilles' heel that made DDJ fits in as a Scripture. Therefore, it is tough to put my point across that it is not mystical. Frankly, I accept your argument. However, when you had deciphered all the related 12 chapters, having understood what he wrote, it clears up, and is no longer mystifying.  These are Chapter 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 14, 25, 39, 42, 52, 62 and 67. I  beg your pardon. I am about to carry out final editing two weeks later for the English translations. Personally, I would not like to discuss about God, and its whatever messages related the creation of the universe. It is not useful at all. Btw, I was a management cum leadership consultant before I started writing. Therefore, in my eyes, the leadership principles and moral principles have great value. Not these mystical stuff expounded in the above-mentioned 12 chapters.  I would like to drop the discussion about dao being God and Taoism, the religious aspect which does not hold water (since it picked a few hundred words (much less than 500 words, indeed) of DDJ and went on to make a big claim that their religion is based on DDJ. This proclamation is not convincing at all! I want to focus purely on daojia, that's its philosophy.    

Personally , I don't think it actually discussed any gods whatsoever , I figure 1) it was written in a time when one had to be careful about what one said , and 2) as a philosophical component of the work overall , the text was intended to be overtly readable from nonexclusive perspectives. ( but I believe these are unequal ultimately ) 

Shaman Flowing hands , I would group as being with those of  Daojiao perspective , certainly has different views than I , but .. he actually has done some really nice translations , to my ear. So my gut feel is that while there are differences , I think they aren't actually alienating. 

Being a work of ' creative writing ' I think its best to recognize that things like the intent of a chapter , can be 180 degrees reversed, of an initial blatant reading, but certainly accurate renderings of text such as they stand in print is always helpful. 

[Eric Woon]

11 hours ago, Eric Woon said:

DDJ is mystical because partly,  it discussed about Shangdi. This is the Archilles' heel that made DDJ fits in as a Scripture. Therefore, it is tough to put my point across that it is not mystical. Frankly, I accept your argument. However, when you had deciphered all the related 12 chapters, having understood what he wrote, it clears up, and is no longer mystifying.  These are Chapter 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 14, 25, 39, 42, 52, 62 and 67. I  beg your pardon. I am about to carry out final editing two weeks later for the English translations. Personally, I would not like to discuss about God, and its whatever messages related the creation of the universe. It is not useful at all. Btw, I was a management cum leadership consultant before I started writing. Therefore, in my eyes, the leadership principles and moral principles have great value. Not these mystical stuff expounded in the above-mentioned 12 chapters.  I would like to drop the discussion about dao being God and Taoism, the religious aspect which does not hold water (since it picked a few hundred words (much less than 500 words, indeed) of DDJ and went on to make a big claim that their religion is based on DDJ. This proclamation is not convincing at all! I want to focus purely on daojia, that's its philosophy.    

Btw, you can try. ask any Chinese who profess he had read a lot on DDJ. He wil ltell you, he could not understand DDJ. Why? I tell you some hard facts.

1) 2500 years ago, there were around 8000 Chinese words. Today, there are 46,000 words. Assume half are seldom used words, it still gives us 23,000 words. That is three times more that 2500 years ago.

2) Because of its limited number of words, most Chinese characters has more than one meaning. You can do this. Go to zdic.net which is the official Chinese online dictionary. Type in the word 道. You shall find 14 different meanings.  Type in 无、爸, these two words, each has only one meaning. Most of the rest, has more than one meaning.

3) Few (none, I supposed) suspect some of the words in DDJ are an abbreviation of Chinese proverbs. I found slightly more than 200 of them. Some of my students were stunt！They argued, "Btw, Chinese proverb wasn't in existence in the Pre-Qin era. At most, the earliest Chinese proverbs appears around the later part of the Han dynasty, and perhaps, a later Dynasty." I explained to them, "Most Chinese proverbs have their on history, especially, the Chinese proverbs though which were formalized as mostly 4 characters nowadays. therefore, you have to be very careful. You must not pick Chinese proverbs that did not originate historical stories from the Pre-Qin era. The 200 plus Chinese proverbs which I found out were from the Pre-Qin era, mostly much older than Lao Zi and some around his time, and perhaps one to two hundreds years later.

4) Some of the words indeed meant different thing. For example, the word 谷 as in 谷神, means Valley God today because 谷 means valley today. However, after careful research, I found that it actually meant plain, especially after cross-examining chapter 39 and the Chinese proverb, 虚怀若谷.

5) Chinese language grammars appears only lately, least than 50 years old.  The vernacular Chinese language which most Chinese read and write today was a very late creation and officially adopted in 1920. Meaning, the Chinese language that most Chinese read today, is only 98 years old. Other than the less than 1% Chinese who picked up the study of classical Chinese in university, I can safely say, the other 99% of the Chinese could not understand classical Chinese. They merely make guesses. Often, I found that there understanding were not accurate, and often, off by quite a lot.

6) Since classical Chinese, anything written from year 1919 and backwards, were not written with proper grammar, the 99% of the Chinese today, simply cannot understand it.

7) Classical Chinese way of writing were horrendous in another way. It sometimes quote the name of a historical person. If you do not know the history of that particular person, you can never understand what that particular phrase is expounding. Here is a simple example. 萧规曹随。The first character refer to the Han Dynasty' first Prime minister Xiao. The third word refers to the Prime Minister who took over from him when Xiao passed away. There are many more which are much more difficult.

8) Before an author write a book, he must first lay down its theme. Today, no one know what was the theme of DDJ. Was it written with one them, or two themes, and perhaps, three. I can point it out to you. It was two themes. 

9) DDJ was erroneous translated as poetic. This was a horrendous mistake.

10)  Punctuation marks was a very recent addition to the Chinese language. As late as the Song dynasty, the breaking of phrases was by use of a new line. No even a full stop or comma was invented then. The full stop was used perhaps, during the Ming dynasty, the earliest. The full set of punctuation marks in use now, was a direct copy of the English language and this did not happen earlier than 50 years ago.

11) You have to be care when you read two Chinese character laid side-by-side. You have to decide to break them up as two individual words, or a phrase, or worse, it could be a Chinese proverb. Here is one good example. 配天。Actually, it was an abbreviation for 德配天地。This is another one. 无德 which is an abbreviation from a very old phrase 无德不贵，无能不官。This can be traced back to assume the originator was Xunzi, a contemporary of Mencius. This does not mean, this phrase actually originate from him.  It could be a phrase used in verbal communication or discussion much earlier than his writing.

12) Since the introduction of simplified Chinese characters in the late 1950, 99% of the mainland Chinese cannot read traditional Chinese characters which are still in use in Taiwan.  Therefore, they can't read DDJ in its originate text. Taiwanese on the other hand do not read simplified Chinese characters. The residents of Hong Kong are eloquent in both traditional and simplified Chinese characters. They read and write in both. Next best are the Malaysian Chinese who read Chinese. This is because the newspapers in these two places, dedicated certain sections to traditional Chinese texts, while the majority uses simplified Chinese characters.

       

Summing up, these 12 points are enough to give you a fair idea why most of the Chinese people cannot read classical Chinese, and that includes DDJ.

             

Edited March 24, 2018 by Eric Woon
Added points 9 to 12.

[Eric Woon]

8 minutes ago, Stosh said:

Personally , I don't think it actually discussed any gods whatsoever , I figure 1) it was written in a time when one had to be careful about what one said , and 2) as a philosophical component of the work overall , the text was intended to be overtly readable from nonexclusive perspectives. ( but I believe these are unequal ultimately ) 

Shaman Flowing hands , I would group as being with those of  Daojiao perspective , certainly has different views than I , but .. he actually has done some really nice translations , to my ear. So my gut feel is that while there are differences , I think they aren't actually alienating. 

Being a work of ' creative writing ' I think its best to recognize that things like the intent of a chapter , can be 180 degrees reversed, of an initial blatant reading, but certainly accurate renderings of text such as they stand in print is always helpful. 

Why not, ask some of these guys (daojiao) to translate chapter 40, the shortest chapter with only 21 words. I bet you, they can't. If they can't, it means only one thing. They just pick on some words or phrases that somehow, can be turn to their advantage. That all. Perhaps, this could be another challenge for these daojiao guys. Just pick 12 words in a row, from any chapter. Let them explain what they understand from this string of twelve words. I am not asking them to explain the entire chapter (other than chapter 40), though. I am already very generous.       

[Stosh]

13 minutes ago, Eric Woon said:

Why not, ask some of these guys (daojiao) to translate chapter 40, the shortest chapter with only 21 words. I bet you, they can't. If they can't, it means only one thing. They just pick on some words or phrases that somehow, can be turn to their advantage. That all. Perhaps, this could be another challenge for these daojiao guys. Just pick 12 words in a row, from any chapter. Let them explain what they understand from this string of twelve words. I am not asking them to explain the entire chapter (other than chapter 40), though. I am already very generous.       

OK , I'll attend to that, but understand I'm at work which takes priority , though I have sporadic free time. 

I have several translations at home which I cross connect . This chapter expects one to understand and emphasize the underlying ironies of what is being said overall.   

Edited March 23, 2018 by Stosh

[Marblehead]

1 hour ago, Eric Woon said:

Btw, Lao Zi is 2600 years by now. It is very difficult to understand what was this theme for DDJ in the first place. Least so, to pick on a particular word, dao. For example, Zhuangzi picked up two words wu wei and gave it a very different meaning as supposed to be an abbreviation of five words, where the last four characters forms a Chinese proverb. Shall we say, Zhuang Zi is wrong? If I insist, you might want me to prove it. This is not difficult, though. But to prove Dao is God, it is much more difficult.  There is a humongous wall of 50 million strong CCP members who are all atheists. They would never accept dao is God. I am facing this problem now. Lao Zi, to them is the wisest Chinese philosopher of all, and they hold him in much higher regards than Confucius! Sine the Cultural Revolution in the 1960s, Confucius has been thumbed down for at least half a century by now. 

Excellent response.  I'm really not trying to change your understandings or influence you in any way.  This is just my way of interacting with others when there is a difference of understanding.

 

I have seen published translations that the translator used "God" instead of "Tao".  I feel they were wrong in doing so.

 

Yes, Chuang Tzu is a challenge to read without finding many contradictions.  Thing is, understandings change as data and the environment change.

 

And yes, there are a number of understandings to the meaning of "wu wei".  We probably shouldn't discuss those here as there have already been many threads pertaining to the concept.

 

And yes, it is my understanding that even the Chinese characters have taken on different meanings over time.  I suppose it is quite a challenge to do a literal translation of the TTC.

 

Yeah, I'm an Atheist but not even close to being a Communist because I am more accurately an Anarchist.

 

Yes, I can see where the Communists would have a hard time with Confucian teachings.  Even a harder time with Taoist teachings, I would think.

 

You don't have to prove anything to me.  But I wouldn't back away from reading any English information that supports your understandings.

 

As I said before, if you tell me that you are either an Alchemic, Shamanistic, or Religious Taoist I will immediately shut up about your use of the word "God".

[Marblehead]

42 minutes ago, Eric Woon said:

Why not, ask some of these guys (daojiao) to translate chapter 40, the shortest chapter with only 21 words.    

Hehehe.  I so much don't like the word "Weakness".  Henricks even uses it in his translation.

 

"Reversal" though, I think, is valid.