DDJ 40

[Cobie]

 

On 30/08/2023 at 10:49 PM, ChiDragon said:

FYI These two characters [ 也 and 之 ] may be omitted. They will not alter the meaning of the original text.

Thank you for your reply.  

 

 

 

Edited September 4, 2023 by Cobie

[whocoulditbe?]

On 02/09/2023 at 9:48 PM, ChiDragon said:

You had raised a very interesting question here. Can 有 ever be a noun? Yes, in the Chinese language, any character can be used as a noun. One can tell if it is a noun by context as you did. As a matter of fact, LaoTze had used the characters 有 and 無 as nouns in many occasions. The first thing he did is in Chapter One. If one doesn't understand the usage of characters as nouns, one will never able to read or interpret the text correctly.

So would a sentences like 有有有 "existence possesses existence" or 無無無 "nothingness does not possess nothingness" be valid?

[ChiDragon]

6 hours ago, whocoulditbe? said:

So would a sentences like 有有有 "existence possesses existence" or 無無無 "nothingness does not possess nothingness" be valid?

Yes, it is valid. The classic Chinese would be interpreted that way. Very good. You had grips and mastered the Chinese Language very well.

Edited September 4, 2023 by ChiDragon

[Cobie]

Dao cannot be put in words (start Ch. 1); Ch. 40, lines 1. and 2. are Laozi’s opinion. 

 

也者

“… in sentences where speakers offer their own interpretations of a concept, 也者 rather than only 者 can also be used after the subject., http://sinoglot.com/2010/04/the-differences-between-也者-者-and-者也/ 

 

Guodian:  1. 反也者道之動 2. 弱也者道之用  1. Reaction is imo Tao's action. 2. Weakness is imo Tao's function.*

Wang Bi:  1. 反     者道之動 2. 弱    者道之用  1. Reaction is         Tao's action. 2. Weakness is         Tao's function.

~~~
* other characters CD translation ; I’m only interested in 也者 here.

 

 

Edited September 5, 2023 by Cobie

[Cobie]

~~~<>~~~

返 fan3

~~~<>~~~

I prefer to use 返 as it narrows down the possible meaning.

 

返 is interchangeable with 反 only in the meaning of 反 2. turn back, reverse, go back, revert, return; repeat, do again. 

(Kroll page 106)

 

 

Edited September 5, 2023 by Cobie

[Daniel]

Starting on DDJ 38 in order to assess whether there is a flow and context leading up to DDJ 40 and following it.  Seeing / feeling how the author intended the text and ideas to flow should not require a complete translation.  I'll be using the text from Ctext.org for this initial attempt.

 

Any and all comments, corrections, and criticisms ( excluding insults like 'word-salad' ) are welcome. 

 

上德 Upper-De 不 is not     德 De,        是以 Thus 有德 You-De；

下德 Lower-De 不 is not 失德 Shi-De, 是以 Thus 無德 Wu-De。

 

上德 Upper-De [is] 無為 WuWei 而 and 無以為 Wu-Yi-Wei；

下德 Lower-De       為之 it's Wei 而 and 有以為 You-Yi-Wei。

 

上仁 Upper-Compassion 為之 it's Wei 而 and 無以為 Wu-Yi-Wei；

上義 Upper-Justice          為之 it's Wei 而 and 有以為 You-Yi-Wei。

 

上禮 Upper-Courtesy 為之 it's Wei 而 and 莫之 [if] there it is not 應 agreement, 則 but 攘臂 wildly-gesturing 而 and 扔 throwing 之 it。

 

故 [This] Causes

 

失道 Shi-Dao 而後 and then 德 De，

失德  Shi-De 而後  and then 仁 Compassion，

失仁 Shi-Compassion 而後 and then 義 Justice，

失義 Shi-Justice 而後 and then 禮 courtesy。

 

夫禮 Shi-courtesy 者 [is] this person，忠信 Loyal-trust 之 it is 薄 weak，而 and 亂 chaos 之 it is 首 in charge。

 

前 It will be 識 thought 者 to the person who is ，"道 Dao 之 it is 華 blossoming"，而 and 愚 to be deceived 之 it is 始 the beginning。

 

是以  Thus 大丈夫 A man with integrity 處 resides 其 [in] his 厚 kindness，不 Not 居 standing 其 [in] his 薄 unkindness；

處 resides 其 [in] his 實 honesty/truth, 不 Not 居 standing 其 [in] his 華 magnificence。

 

故 Because 去 [it] departs [from those] 彼 that 取 cling 此 to this。

 

Edited September 6, 2023 by Daniel

[ChiDragon]

This is the interpretation of a well known Chinese scholar who has the full authority on the subject.
Chapter 38 The Virtuous De
1. 上德不德，
2. 是以有德。
3. 下德不失德，
4. 是以無德。
5. 上德 [無為] 而無以為。
6. 下德 [無為] 而有以為。
7. To be continued......

Sino-English
1. High virtue is not being boasted with virtue,
2. Thus one has virtue or virtuous.
3. Low virtue is tried not to lose virtue,
4. Thus one has no virtue or not virtuous.
5. High virtue with wu wei, thus committed with no intention.
6. Low virtue with wu wei, thus committed with intention.

Notes:
1. [無為]wu wei: let nature take its course with no interference; to be natural; 
2. One who has an intention was considered not to be Wu Wei. 

 

[Daniel]

Thank you @ChiDragon,

 

Silly question ( which, I recall from one of your posts on another thread, is permitted  )

 

So, on Ctext.org they are using 為之, but, this is referring to 無為 from the lines above it?

 

Edited September 6, 2023 by Daniel

[whocoulditbe?]

46 minutes ago, ChiDragon said:

This is the interpretation of a well known Chinese scholar who has the full authority on the subject.
Chapter 38 The Virtuous De
1. 上德不德，
2. 是以有德。
3. 下德不失德，
4. 是以無德。
5. 上德 [無為] 而無以為。
6. 下德 [無為] 而有以為。
7. To be continued......

Sino-English
1. High virtue is not being boasted with virtue,
2. Thus one has virtue or virtuous.
3. Low virtue is tried not to lose virtue,
4. Thus one has no virtue or not virtuous.
5. High virtue with wu wei, thus committed with no intention.
6. Low virtue with wu wei, thus committed with intention.

Notes:
1. [無為]wu wei: let nature take its course with no interference; to be natural; 
2. One who has an intention was considered not to be Wu Wei.

I'm all for Chinese scholars using their own version of English. It's pretty cool.

 

Sorry to stack the questions again, but: Where do "being boasted" and "tried" come from? How does 不 act before a noun such as 德? Do you think 下德 refers to actual vice, the negation of virtue, to a subdued form of virtue, or to the virtue of lowliness itself? Likewise, is 上德 a great amount of virtue, or is it the virtue of greatness? Where does "committed" come from?

Thank you.

[ChiDragon]

 

1 hour ago, Daniel said:

Thank you @ChiDragon,

 

Silly question ( which, I recall from one of your posts on another thread, is permitted  )

 

So, on Ctext.org they are using 為之, but, this is referring to 無為 from the lines above it?

 

You welcome! Daniel
In this case, by context, 無為 here interpreted as take no action.
為之, here, is to take action.

This classic Chinese, it cannot be interpreted as word for word as in modern English or Chinese. It takes a high level of scholar to explain it.
 

Edited September 6, 2023 by ChiDragon

[ChiDragon]

24 minutes ago, whocoulditbe? said:

I'm all for Chinese scholars using their own version of English. It's pretty cool.

 

Sorry to stack the questions again, but: Where do "being boasted" and "tried" come from? How does 不 act before a noun such as 德? Do you think 下德 refers to actual vice, the negation of virtue, to a subdued form of virtue, or to the virtue of lowliness itself? Likewise, is 上德 a great amount of virtue, or is it the virtue of greatness? Where does "committed" come from?

Thank you.

Hi, whowoulditbe,

This is classic Chinese, it is a whole new ball game for the modern people to understand. Especially, for a native or non-native who is not familiar with the classic literature. To interpret a phrase or sentence in classic is it based on logic by trial and error. The interpretation needs to be done many times until a most logical conclusion has been reached.

"Sorry to stack the questions again, but: Where do "being boasted" and "tried" come from?"
Good question.
First of all, in the TTC, it talks about the quality of de(德). Classified by high(上德) and low(下德), 上德 is being the high quality of virtue and 下德 is the low quality of virtue. The 德, virtue of Tao, is the virtual quality of those who follow the principles of Tao. Those who do not glorify oneself being possessed the virtue of Tao was considered high virtue. The opposite is considered low virtue. This is the implication what Laotze was emphasizing in this chapter.

[Daniel]

 

57 minutes ago, ChiDragon said:

In this case, by context, 無為 here interpreted as take no action.
為之, here, is to take action.

 

OK.  Well.   Just a bit of good news:  That's what I was thinking when I attempted the translation.

 

57 minutes ago, ChiDragon said:

This classic Chinese, it cannot be interpreted as word for word as in modern English or Chinese. It takes a high level of scholar to explain it.

 

I undertand that.  Thank you for your patience helping me.

[Daniel]

1 hour ago, whocoulditbe? said:

Where does "being boasted" come from?

 

Clearly I'm not a scholar, but when I read this, I considered the end, 2nd to last line and said to myself, "well that makes sense." ( Hopefully I did OK with the word for word translation )

 

是以  Thus 大丈夫 A man with integrity 處 resides 其 [in] his 厚 kindness，不 Not 居 standing 其 [in] his 薄 unkindness；

處 resides 其 [in] his 實 honesty/truth, 不 Not 居 standing 其 [in] his 華 magnificence。

 

故 Because 去 [it] departs [from those] 彼 that 取 cling 此 to this。

 

That's my best guess.  If so, the "punch-line" at the end is being applied at the beginning even though the words are not technically there.

 

Edited September 6, 2023 by Daniel

[Daniel]

1 hour ago, whocoulditbe? said:

1. High virtue is not being boasted with virtue,
2. Thus one has virtue or virtuous.

 

So, what if it's read this way:

 

High virtue is not being boasted with virtue as:  "one has virtue or or one is virtuous".  ?

 

Meaning: [One having] High-virtue does not claim "I have virtue" or "I am virtuous"

 

Higher-virtue does not label itself as "virtue".

 

上德 不 "德" ,  是以 "有德" .  = Higher De is not "De", as thus "De is manifesting/forming/present/active". 

 

If it did claim that, it would be boasting.

 

Edited September 6, 2023 by Daniel

[ChiDragon]

23 hours ago, ChiDragon said:

1. 上德不德，
2. 是以有德。
3. 下德不失德，
4. 是以無德。

 

22 hours ago, whocoulditbe? said:

Where do "being boasted" and "tried" come from? How does 不 act before a noun such as 德? Do you think 下德 refers to actual vice, the negation of virtue, to a subdued form of virtue, or to the virtue of lowliness itself? Likewise, is 上德 a great amount of virtue, or is it the virtue of greatness? Where does "committed" come from?

Let me show how the interpretation was done?
The word for word translation would be this:

1. 上德不德，(high virtue is not virtuous)
2. 是以有德。(thus it has virtue) or (it's virtuous)
First of all, isn't it sounds paradoxical? How can a person with high virtue is not virtuous? The logic makes no sense. Therefore, it has to be rephrased it into modern language. So, it will make more sense! Let's rephrase it with a better logic.

1. One who has high virtue quality will not glorify its value,
2. Then one is virtuous.
This is how the logic flows and make much more sense. The idea of "being boasted" is clearly hidden here. No?

FYI In the ancient time, there weren't as many characters to express an idea. Most of the time, an idea was written with a phrase with no punctuation. Sometimes, it is very easy to misinterpret an idea if the last character of a phrase was connected with the first character of the next phrase.

The lines 3 and 4 are also very paradoxical.
3. 下德不失德，(low virtue does not lose its virtuous value)
4. 是以無德。(thus it is not virtuous)

To rephrase it, it would read:
3. One who has low virtue quality attempts not to lose the least virtuous value,
4. Thus one is not virtuous.

Do you see what I mean?

Edited September 7, 2023 by ChiDragon

[Daniel]

1 hour ago, ChiDragon said:

Do you see what I mean?

 

Speaking for myself, yes, I see what you mean.

 

I'm seeing it differently.  It looks to me, as an amatuer outsider, that the text is defining terms.  And yes, the paradox is beautiful.  True and beautiful.  If it is defining terms, then the same pattern in lines 1 and 2 are repeated in 3 and 4.  Also, 1 and 3 are a pair, and 2 and 4 are a pair.

 

The author at this very beginning of the chapter seems to be saying, higher-virtue is not an overt-action ( You-De ).  No, it is not.  And the then the author says basically the same thing inverted, lower-virtue is not emptying-deconstructed-action (Wu-De).  No, it is not.

 

Then it spends some time describing what upper-virtue is.  It's Wu-Yi-De.  And gives examples.  All of which should be understood as Wu-Yi-De.

 

And conversely it tells us what the lower-virtue is.  You-Yi-De.

 

It's just defining terms.

 

In line 3, it says, the lower-virtue is not Shi-De.  Then later it tells us what Shi-De is.  It's a cascading process which leads to chaos.  All of this should be understood as You-Yi-De.

 

How am I doing?

 

Edited September 7, 2023 by Daniel

[Daniel]

If so...  the interesting part is "上義" and "上禮".  These are both You-Yi-De?  Which is defined as lower-virtue.  But they are both "upper".  So, either a negative valence needs to be applied to 義 and 禮 in the translation choice for the words themself, or the idea of lifting up 義 and 禮 is actually creating a negative consequence and that is part of the lesson being taught.  That's an understanding or interpretation that needs to be held in thought while reading it. 

 

It could be that it's an inverse proportionality, a paradox, where lifting these qualities is actually producing a negative effect.  Or, it could be that in the extreme 義 and 禮 produce a negative effect and these need to be middle-path qualities.  And in fact lowering them also produces a negative consequence.

 

Then, there is Shi-De. After that.  It's after 義 and 禮 are lifted?  Perhaps to an extreme, or perhaps lifted at all.  Which causes the obvious visible conflict ( wild gestures and such ), or perhaps an internal non-visible conflict.  It's chaos either way, internally or externally.

 

Edited September 7, 2023 by Daniel

[ChiDragon]

7 hours ago, Daniel said:

How am I doing?

I think you did good! I do follow your thoughts. That is your understanding. However, if one look at the over all picture of the TTC, the definition of de had been defined already in Chapter 51. The de in this chapter was used as descriptive function. It was not redefining its definition here, as you thought it would be. It was describing the quality of a virtuous person rather than what de is.

Again, in Chapters 54 and 55 are using de as descriptive function. These chapters describe the virtuous action of de rather than defining de.

Edited September 8, 2023 by ChiDragon

[Daniel]

4 hours ago, ChiDragon said:

I think you did good! I do follow your thoughts. That is you understanding. However, if one look at the over all picture of the TTC, the definition of de had been defined already in Chapter 51. The de in this chapter was used as descriptive function. It was not redefining its definition here, as you thought it would be. It was describing the quality of a virtuous person rather than what de is.

Again, in Chapters 54 and 55 are using de as descriptive function. These chapters describe the virtuous action of de rather then defining de.

 

Got it.  Thanks!

[Daniel]

Chapter 39 seems to indicate @ChiDragon is correct.  于 should be interpretted as 'from'.

 

昔之 得一者.

 

天?         得一  以清 

地 ?        得一 以寧 

神 ?        得一 以靈 

谷/裕 ?  得一 以盈 

 

But, I'm still working through the translation.  And I'd like to follow through on the process I proposed in the DDJ40 thread.

[Daniel]

ChiDragon wrote:

 

Quote

FYI To help you to get start it.
"一" is Tao.
得一 means one who has Tao.

•  

 

Edited September 9, 2023 by Daniel

[Daniel]

Specifically, I'm looking at 昔之, and that seems to indicate that what follows is a beginning, and is describing "becoming" not "unbecoming".  A sort of evolution, not devolution.

 

If so:

 

"物生 from 有 ，有生  from 无" makes good sense and is logical from context and flow.  (becoming / evolution)

 

"物生 into 有 ，有生 into 无" doesn not make good sense and is not logical from context and flow. (unbecoming / devolution)

 

Edited September 9, 2023 by Daniel

[Daniel]

ChiDragon wrote:

 

Quote

FYI
昔之: in the past; after; since
昔之得一者: After those who obtained Tao
This is implying one who had learned and follows the principles of Tao.

•  

 

[Daniel]

Sorry friends, we started talking about this topic in another thread.  I've copied all the relevant content over here.

[dawei]

Here is  the first point. Life cycles from death to life to death. . Cyclic. Then it transitions to a different linear point of view...  another more linear point of view,  being comes from nonbeing. Why the change ?