The perfect square has no corners?

[Starjumper]

3 hours ago, OldDog said:

Square often seems to be used for Earth

 

This must be it right here.  If square is often used to represent Earth then greatest square is just a redundancy to make sure that we know he is actually referring to the Earth  ...  However, then it is not a paradox, and since the other statements are seeming paradoxes that makes it not fit so well  ...  However a lot of times LZ puts in a last line which seem to not fit so well with the preceding lines.

 

So I am unanimous in this, greatest square is referring to Earth.  Thank you all for you kind attention.

[silent thunder]

The latter responses remind me how in The Secret of the Golden Flower, reference is made to 'the square inch inside the square foot'.

 

This was regarding the focal point, or gateway orifice between the inner and outer selves, according to Wang Li Ping.

Though it doesn't seem to relate to the verse in question to me, I mention it in case it carries resonance for others.

[Eric Woon]

4 hours ago, Daemon said:

 

I suggest that you PM @Eric Woon

 

☮️

Chapter 41: 建德若偷。质真若渝。大方无隅。大器晚成。大音希声。大象无形。

^[MP28]In addition to his leadership ability, let’s look at his moral conduct, whether:

1. ^[MP28a]He is surreptitious in the manifestation of his loving, kind and compassions. That certainly goes against his principle to remain simple and true to his genuine nature of a kind and benevolent person.

2. ^[MP28b]He possesses extensive knowledgeable, professional and is a subject expert, tolerant and broad minded.

3. ^[MP28c]He is very capable and comfortable assume heavy responsibilities or high office. This is the reason why his attainment is towards his later years in life.

4. ^[MP28d]He delivered great merits purely out of his loving-kindness, charitable actions and setting personal fame or glory aside.

5. ^[MP28e]From the perspective of common folks’ undertakings or delivery of charitable works, his generous virtue does not falls in familiar traits.     

The above is the translation of the Original Modern Chinese translations below.

^[MP28]除了领导能力之外，我们也要看清楚他的品德：

1. ^[MP28a]若是暗中地倡导仁爱的操行，却又像是在隐瞒其真正的品行，也像是违背了自己的质朴和纯真；

2. ^[MP28b]若是见识广博，有专长而没有狭隘片面的见解；

3. ^[MP28c]若是有才能，能担负重任，就须要经过长期的磨炼，所以他的成就往往是比较晚的；

4. ^[MP28d]若是大功德，必须由心生的仁爱，又希有[1]名声；

5. ^[MP28e]若是以宏大的常理去观看他怎样施仁布德[2]，却似乎没有一个固定的形象。

Explanation of each of the individual Chinese word mentioned above.

 

[建]：提出，倡议：建议、建策（出谋献策）。

[德]：德就是仁爱大德，简称“仁爱”。

备注：请回顾第21章。

[建德]：倡导仁爱的操行。

注释：添加宾语“操行”，目的是缩小其含义，只关注仁爱在于操行上的解释而已。

[若]：如，像：年相若、安之若素、旁若无人。

注释：引申为“像是”。

[偷]：偷偷，行动瞒着人，暗中。

[建德若偷]：若是暗中地倡导仁爱的操行，又好像是在隐瞒其真正的品质[3]。

备注：没必要那么死板地推敲字句。

 

[质]：朴素，单纯：质朴、质直。

[真]：本性，本原：纯真、天真。

[质真]：质朴{和}纯真。

批注：以现代语言，在 “质朴”与“纯真”之间注入连词“和”，表示跟或同。

[渝]： 改变，违背（多指感情或态度），如忠贞不渝。

[若渝]：像似违背了。

[质真若渝]：也像是违背了{自己}的质朴和纯真。

批注：少了宾语。于是，补上人称代词“自己”。

备注：没必要那么死板地推敲字句。

 

[大方]：见识广博，有专长的人。

注解：不可以将“大方”掰开为“大”和“方”来解释。

[无]：没有，与“有”相对；不。

备注：保留原文“无”，没必要翻译。

[隅]：隅见（片面的见解）。

[无隅]：无片面的见解。

注释：引申为“无尽头”。

[大方无隅]：见识广博，有专长而没有狭隘片面的见解。

备注：没必要那么死板地推敲字句。

 

[大器]：有才能，能担负重任的人。

注解：不可以将“大器”掰开为“大”和“器”来解释。

[晚成]：则须要经过长期的磨炼，所以他的成就往往是比较晚的。

注解：不可以将“晚成”掰开为“晚”和“成”来解释。

[大器晚成]：有才能，能担负重任的人，则须要经过长期的磨炼，所以他的成就往往是比较晚的。

备注：没必要那么死板地推敲字句。

 

[大]：大美（大功德，大功业）。

备注：请参照《汉典》“大”字的详细解释。

[音]：《礼记·乐记》凡音之起，由人心生也。声成文，谓之音。

注释：依据上下文，引申为“由心生的仁爱”。

备注：请参照《汉典》“大”字的详细解释。

 [大音]：大功德，必须由心生的仁爱。

[希]：少：希少（shǎo ）、希罕、希奇、希有、希世。

注释：最佳选择是“希有”，亦作稀有，少有、少见。

[声]：名誉：名声。

[希声]：希有名声。

[大音希声]：大功德，必须由心生的仁爱{也}，{又}希有名声。

批注1：注入“也”，表示停顿一下，舒缓语气，后半句将对前半句加以解说。

批注2：添加“又”，表示加重语气、更进一层。

备注：没必要那么死板地推敲字句。

 

[大象]：常理，伸缩视图。

注释：引申为“以宏大的常理去观看{他怎样施仁布德}”。

批注：少了宾语。依据上下文，补上宾语“他怎样施仁布德”。

注解：依据上一句“大功德，必须由心生的仁爱”，接下来需要观察他怎样施仁布德。

[无]：没有，与“有”相对；不。

[形]：样子：形状、形式、形态、形迹、地形、情形、形象。

[无形]：没有一个固定的形象。

[大象无形]：以宏大的常理去观看他怎样施仁布德，{却似乎}没有一个固定的形象。

批注1：添加连词“却”，表示转折。

批注2：添加“似乎”，表示好像是，而绝对不是完全无形象的。

 

---

[1] 亦作稀有，少有、少见。

[2] 指实行仁义，布施恩德，多行善事。

[3]  指人的行为和作风所显示的思想、品性、认识等实质。

[dawei]

9 hours ago, Kar3n said:

Given any thought to other translations of the original text for a better understanding?

 

大象無形

 

I think that is the wrong line, but this one:  大方无隅

 

 

4 hours ago, Starjumper said:

 

This must be it right here.  If square is often used to represent Earth then greatest square is just a redundancy to make sure that we know he is actually referring to the Earth  ...  However, then it is not a paradox, and since the other statements are seeming paradoxes that makes it not fit so well  ...  However a lot of times LZ puts in a last line which seem to not fit so well with the preceding lines.

 

So I am unanimous in this, greatest square is referring to Earth.  Thank you all for you kind attention.

 

It is not so much a paradox, our thinking, than a basic lesson of DDJ1.1:   TO speak of Dao is not the eternal Dao.

 

Fuxi and sister-wife are anciently known for their square [earth] and compass [heaven] pictures.

 

One of the oldest cosmologies I have talked about, Xian Heng, says:

"The center exists first, then so does the outer; the small exists first, then so does the big; the soft exist first, then so does the solid; the round exists first, then so does the square; the dark exists first, then so does the bright; the short exist first, then so does the long."  (Yong-yun Lee)

 

At the same time period, an ancient cosmology of Taiyi Sheng Shui by Sarah Allen writes how Laozi was first to mention a cosmograph (Shi) which is a round heaven in a square earth with a central pivot.

 

Now, Heshang Gong wrote in his commentary, "The squarest and most honest individual shows no bents or projections.".   Even Lin Yutang seems to support this as a valid application.

 

I think there are lots of applications we can come up with.  If we follow Laozi, opposites are compliments, the complete each other or follow each other.

 

DDJ25:  Earth (square) follows Heaven (round)

 

That supports the Xian Heng text (the round exists first, then so does the square)

 

At it's simplest level, one moment precedes another moment; one action is following another action; one life is following another life;  or simple, one completes the other.   Once you have Both/And in agreement, there is no difference between them and you progress to Zhuangzi to the level of non-dual sameness.  

[Wells]

54 minutes ago, dawei said:

One of the oldest cosmologies I have talked about, Xian Heng, says:

"The center exists first, then so does the outer; the small exists first, then so does the big; the soft exist first, then so does the solid; the round exists first, then so does the square; the dark exists first, then so does the bright; the short exist first, then so does the long."  (Yong-yun Lee)

 

Taoist reasoning (as it was in the beginning before it became refined, when it still truly aimed for Taiji and not for pure yang) seems to have certain advantages over buddhist reasoning for comprehending the fundamental.

Another reason which supports Jax' theory that dzogchen was originally born in taoism and later found a home (or exile?) in buddhism.

I'd like to add: The true mystery of the world is the visible, not the invisible.

 

Edited May 16, 2018 by Wells

[Lost in Translation]

Speaking of squares...

 

Quote

In China before the first century BGC, the ground on which persons lived was thought at its limits to be square.  What was above that ground was thought at its limits to be round.  Denote the first space as earth, and the second, as heaven, while carefully ignoring current ideas, beliefs, and knowledge associated with earth and heaven.   Then ponder this Chinese text that probably dates from before the first century BGC:

The square pertains to Earth, and the circle pertains to Heaven.  Heaven is a circle, and Earth is a square.[1]

This cosmography is known as gai tian.  Fragments of a Chinese poem written about 300 BGC detail it:

The square earth is a chariot;
The round heaven is its canopy.[2]

Gai tian cosmography seems to have deep historical roots in Chinese culture. 

 

Interesting stuff. Very interesting.

 

https://www.purplemotes.net/2010/12/05/earths-a-square-heaven-a-circle/

[Lost in Translation]

Which makes the particular shape of I ching divination coins make a lot more sense!

 

 

[Alchemical Walrus]

15 hours ago, Wells said:

 

That's a wrong translation imo, and as a quick google search shows, other philosophs come to the same conclusion like I did independantly concerning what the correct translation must be...

While I agree, since that proof was not relevant to my post except for as a historical detail, I simply used the most commonly known translation of cogito, ergo sum. My intent was, if a person's never heard of Descartes before, they've probably heard the phrase "I think, therefore I am", and so mentioning his relation to that phrase felt useful.

[Marblehead]

But then again, looking for perfection in nature (the perfect square) is similar to looking for the absolute truth.  

 

Sure, man can create a perfect square based on his valuations and that perfect square can be useful.

 

 

[wandelaar]

Just now, Marblehead said:

Sure, man can create a perfect square based on his valuations and that perfect square can be useful.

 

No - don't think so. For one thing atoms have a finite size so the physical square will not have perfectly straight sides. Perfect squares only exist in the imagination of the mathematician (and perhaps in some platonic world of forms). And to be useful in mathematics they have to be perfect, for else the theory would become extremely complicated. That makes this paradox stand out as something fundamentally different from the others. In the everyday world perfection is at best useless and more likely counterproductive. But in the world of mathematics imaginary perfect objects are indispensable to arrive at an elegant and useful theory.

 

But when the "great square" is the Earth the paradox would become a simple fact as the Earth indeed has no corners. But I don't know whether that was already known at the time.

 

[Marblehead]

WoW!  Now you are telling me that Dao is dynamic.

 

What next?  Destruction follows creation?

 

[OldDog]

Ummm, what about Ch40?

 

Reversion is the action of Tao.

 

... or from Chuangzi ...

 

Division is the same as creation, and creation is the same as destruction. There is no such thing as creation and destruction, for these conditions are again levelled together into One.

 

 

[wandelaar]

Uhh

[silent thunder]

This notion of perfection is tickling me in that spot I can't ignore... so thank you to all for this conversation.  This sensation lately, is usually an indication I'm about to encounter another previously held false notion in my own mind.

 

When I walk through a forest... I don't consider any of the trees imperfect, no matter how they twist, weave, split or fall down.  Same with clouds... I don't consider any of them to be 'wrong' or 'imperfect'.  They are as they are.  They form to their nature and this flows from tao.

 

If I open to this notion of perfection within form however it manifests and in the passing of form, however it dissolves... the notion of the perfect square resounds all about me and nothing is imperfect, no matter how seemingly flawed to my mental story monkey mind.

 

I build scenery for a living.  I strive for perfection in everything I build and it amazes me, after several decades of perfecting my skills and craft, how elusive the perfection in form that is manifest is from the notions of it in my mind, even for an accomplished master with decades of experience and skill.

 

So perhaps this notion of perfection is the source of dissonance.  Who am i with my human mind to be the arbiter of what constitutes perfection in form or not?  Where is the definition of perfection and who judges, disseminates and protects this notion?

 

Can't put it in the exact right words, as words cannot convey such beingness... but there's a potent, palpable sensing deep in my gut that what I used to consider the imperfect square is only in my mind... for the manifest comes upon its form through nature which follows tao, which therefor is perfect.  How could it be other than it is... this is how it formed following its own nature from the tao?  What in its natural expression is imperfect but that our minds make a dissonance saying... 'you should be other than you are'? 

 

This notion is echoed much more palpably by Alan Watts who experienced it spontaneously as a 17 year old boy in a moment of nonlocal clarity and it went on to shape his entire, beautiful life... he generously shared his sense of it in his powerhouse of a book: This Is It!  Here I quote a section from the opening essay that echoes the sentiments coalescing in my own sensing of it now. 

 

Spoiler

The most impressive fact in man's spiritual, intellectual, and poetic experience has always been, for me, the universal prevalence of those astonishing moments of insight which Richard Bucke called "cosmic concsiousness."  There is no really satisfactory name for this type of experience.  To call it mystical is to confuse it with visions of another world, or of gods and angels.  To call it spiritual or metaphysical is to suggest that it is not also extremely concrete and physical, while the term "cosmic consciousness" itself has the unpoetic flavor of occultist jargon.  But from all historical times and cultures we have reports of this same unmistakable sensation emerging, as a rule, quite suddenly and unexpectedly and from no clearly understood cause.

 

To the individual thus enlightened it appears as a vivid and overwhelming certainty that the universe, precisely as it is at this moment, as a whole and in every one of its parts, is so completely right as to need no explanation or justification beyond what it simply is.  Existence not only ceases to be a problem; the mind is so wonder-struck at the self-evident and self-sufficient fitness of things as they are, including what would ordinarily be thought the very worst, that it cannot find any word strong enough to express the perfections and beauty of the experience.

 

Its clarity sometimes gives the sensation that the world has become transparent or luminious, and its simplicity the sensation that it is pervaded and ordered by a supreme intelligence.   At the same time it is usual for the individual to feel that the whole world has become his own body, and that whatever he is has not only become, but always has been, what everything else is. 

 

It is not that he loses his identity to the point he feels he actually looks out through all other eyes, becoming literally omniscient, but rather that his individual consciousness and existence is a point of view temporarily adopted by something immeasurably greater than himself.

 

[Eric Woon]

20 hours ago, OldDog said:

Ummm, what about Ch40?

 

Reversion is the action of Tao.

 

... or from Chuangzi ...

 

Division is the same as creation, and creation is the same as destruction. There is no such thing as creation and destruction, for these conditions are again levelled together into One.

 

 

When you run into someone who opposes or does not want to follow your order, it is about time to draw upon the principles of leadership and deploy them diligently.

On the other hand, when you run into someone who does not have the will to follow your order, you can also draw upon the principles of leadership and apply them assiduously.

[Mig]

2 hours ago, Eric Woon said:

When you run into someone who opposes or does not want to follow your order, it is about time to draw upon the principles of leadership and deploy them diligently.

On the other hand, when you run into someone who does not have the will to follow your order, you can also draw upon the principles of leadership and apply them assiduously.

Could you give some examples on how to draw upon the principles? and how to apply them?

[Boundlesscostfairy]

Well, a square is a square..unless you abstract it..and then search for more meaning than it has inherently...which would then create corners..that you have searched for beyond the general definition of the square by itself..

[Wu Ming Jen]

Square earth: square in this case means things with form, shape and color . Round heaven means without form, shape or color

 

So a perfect square has no corners because inside and outside of the square is limitless. 

 

When we build square things like a house the emptiness is useful.

 

 

[Marblehead]

My Earth is round and my house is running out of emptiness.

 

[Wu Ming Jen]

We are experiencing an empty nest the kids are grown and have their own places. I am not sure why I still have most of their stuff in our house. I ask them to move their stuff so I can fill the empty space with new stuff.

 

They could rent an empty square to put their stuff in but they all say Dad the perfect square has no corners stop putting my life in a box I am young and free from stuff.

[Stosh]

1 hour ago, Wu Ming Jen said:

We are experiencing an empty nest the kids are grown and have their own places. I am not sure why I still have most of their stuff in our house. I ask them to move their stuff so I can fill the empty space with new stuff.

 

They could rent an empty square to put their stuff in but they all say Dad the perfect square has no corners stop putting my life in a box I am young and free from stuff.

A perfect dumpster is filled with everyone else's stuff.

[silent thunder]

Check that stuff for collectibles before you dump.

 

Some of those kids items may have appreciated wonderfully,  [ yoda voice (fund your retirement they may...)]

[Eric Woon]

23 hours ago, Mig said:

Could you give some examples on how to draw upon the principles? and how to apply them?

Let say you are the champion for a productivity program, say how to increase the efficiency of a particular process. The existing people would resist your new ideas. Therefore, you have to start explaining what the new or improve process improve their job efficiency, make it easy for them to perform the task, least prone to mistakes and etc. These are some of the areas where the existing people might find it to their benefits to learn from you a new way of getting things done. Btw, I was a consultant for > 2 decades. Every time, I faced people who reject my new way of getting things. The worse resistance I faced was this. After two hours of explanations, the other party finally said, "I give you my benefit of doubts. But you have to bear the full responsibility should it not work out." I was smiling in my heart when I heard these words. To me, so long he follows my new way of getting things done, the result shall prove to him I am correct.   

[Eric Woon]

Just now, Eric Woon said:

Let say you are the champion for a productivity program, say how to increase the efficiency of a particular process. The existing people would resist your new ideas. Therefore, you have to start explaining what the new or improve process improve their job efficiency, make it easy for them to perform the task, least prone to mistakes and etc. These are some of the areas where the existing people might find it to their benefits to learn from you a new way of getting things done. Btw, I was a consultant for > 2 decades. Every time, I faced people who reject my new way of getting things. The worse resistance I faced was this. After two hours of explanations, the other party finally said, "I give you my benefit of doubts. But you have to bear the full responsibility should it not work out." I was smiling in my heart when I heard these words. To me, so long he follows my new way of getting things done, the result shall prove to him I am correct.   

Just today, I finally manage to convince the entire management team to adopt my three proposals. One, to adopt a new company philosophy. Two, to implement a Shop Floor Control System which I designed specifically for them. Three, forbids over-time while I continue to load them factory with more job orders. All three are meant for the benefits of the entire company. The entire management team, all happily accepted my three proposals. I have never seen this management finally agreed in unison. Two hours, later, they execute the orders based on my proposals. 

[Marblehead]

21 minutes ago, Eric Woon said:

Two hours, later, they execute the orders based on my proposals. 

I almost read that as two hours later they executed you.