"Spirit" in the DDJ

[ChiDragon]

1 hour ago, Daniel said:

And if at all possible can you elaborate on the pun? 

What I meant was Laotze used the verb "You", 有, as a noun. At the same time, hinting that Tao is in the visible state. He used "Wu"，無, as a noun indicating that Tao is in the invisible state.

[Daniel]

58 minutes ago, ChiDragon said:

What I meant was Laotze used the verb "You", 有, as a noun. At the same time, hinting that Tao is in the visible state. He used "Wu"，無, as a noun indicating that Tao is in the invisible state.

 

In the translation you brought 無 and 有 are nouns when it is referenced as "name" 名?  I see a similar pun in line 2? 

 

名 ( noun ) 可名 ( verb )，非常名 ( noun )。

 

To be clear, I'm not trying to establish a rule.  It's just an observation.  And perhaps it sets up the pun in lines 3 & 4?
 

Edited September 19, 2023 by Daniel

[ChiDragon]

28 minutes ago, Daniel said:

And perhaps it sets up the pun in lines 3 & 4?

Good observation. It was not a set up but it is the way how the classic was written.

[Mig]

8 hours ago, ChiDragon said:

It maybe a little strange to a non-native speaker. As I had indicated before, Chinese characters, sometimes, can be a noun or verb based on the context. Laotze had used both "you" and "wu" many times as verbs and nouns. I believe that the first thing he did was in Chapter One. A bit of advice, it is not wise to interpret the classic DDJ with English thoughts, grammar or rules. Peace!

It seems that the whole concept of noun and verb is a very European concept that it makes me wonder if the ancient philologists or scholars paid attention to it or the explanation or commentary was more important. It also makes me wonder when a Chinese reader how they understand both terms,yǒu wú有无 in plain Chinese. I keep reading many postings focusing character by character and forgetting that the language had evolved for the past thousand years. The ancient Chinese apparently didn't rely on tones and the pronunciation was very different from today. So there was certainly another way to explain when they taught and learned from commentaries on how to interpret line by line, structure by structure and put it into perspective as a manual to be understood. Later in history we see how many terms changed and being used by different lineages as well as mixing Buddhist or confucianist concepts. I think what is important is to know what the native scholar can teach or explain how those terms can be understood.

Just saying

[ChiDragon]

37 minutes ago, Mig said:

Later in history we see how many terms changed and being used by different lineages as well as mixing Buddhist or confucianist concepts. I think what is important is to know what the native scholar can teach or explain how those terms can be understood.

Just saying

The terms do not change. Different religion may use the same terms with their own esoteric meaning. The native scholars do know and understand what are the terms mean in different religion. When they interpret the classics, they do consider how the terms were used in different Era. The classics cannot be interpreted by the modern concepts alone.

Edited September 19, 2023 by ChiDragon

[Daniel]

On 9/17/2023 at 7:45 PM, ChiDragon said:

the only spirit in the TTC would be Tao

 

In the TTC is there any "thing" or "non-thing" that is not 道?

 

Ignoring what is written, according to your intuition, is there any "thing" or "non-thing" that is not 道?

 

If so, if they are not 道, from where are they originating?

 

Edit:  "thing" and "non-thing" are not limited to objects.  They can be objects, actions, ideas, or symbols.

 

Edited September 19, 2023 by Daniel

[Daniel]

On 9/17/2023 at 7:45 PM, ChiDragon said:

Tao is sometimes visible(有) and at other times is invisible(無).

 

To supplement my question above, "sometimes 有 and at other times 無" seems to be all-inclusive?

 

Nothing is excluded?  Literally.

 

"Nothing" is excluded.  ~virtually nods towards @Michael Sternbach~

 

Edited September 19, 2023 by Daniel

[Daniel]

The character that is translated into the english word "spirit" occurs in 4 chapters in the DDJ as brought on Ctext.org.

1. Chapter 6:  谷神不死，是謂玄牝。玄牝之門，是謂天地根。綿綿若存，用之不勤
2. Chapter 29:  將欲取天下而為之，吾見其不得已。天下神器，不可為也，為者敗之，執者失之。故物或行或隨；或歔或吹；或強或羸；或挫或隳。是以聖人去甚，去奢，去泰。
3. Chapter 39:  昔之得一者：天得一以清；地得一以寧；神得一以靈；谷得一以盈；萬物得一以生；侯王得一以為天下貞。其致之，天無以清，將恐裂；地無以寧，將恐發；神無以靈，將恐歇；谷無以盈，將恐竭；萬物無以生，將恐滅；侯王無以貴高將恐蹶。故貴以賤為本，高以下為基。是以侯王自稱孤、寡、不穀。此非以賤為本耶？非乎？故致數譽無譽。不欲琭琭如玉，珞珞如石。
4. Chapter 60:  治大國若烹小鮮。以道蒞天下，其鬼不神；非其鬼不神，其神不傷人；非其神不傷人，聖人亦不傷人。夫兩不相傷，故德交歸焉。

 

[Daniel]

From the infamous, elusive, and mysterious "deleted" thread which inspired this one...

 

On 9/17/2023 at 4:37 PM, ChiDragon said:

 

Chapter 60 Ruled by Tao
 

1. 治大國,若烹小魚.
2. 以道莅天下,
3. 其鬼不神;
4. 非其鬼不神,
5. 其神不傷人;
6. 非其神不傷人,
7. 聖人亦不傷人.
8. 夫兩不相傷,
9. 故德交歸焉. 

1. Ruling a great nation is like frying a small fish.
2. With the presence of Tao beneath heaven,
3. The ghosts cannot extent their power.
4. It's not only that the ghosts cannot extent their power,
5. But its power cannot harm anyone.
6. It was not even that their power cannot harm anyone,
7. A ruler also does no harm to anyone.
8. Since both do no mutual harm to each other,
9. Then, the virtue of peace was returned to the people.

Laotze is an atheist and naturalist. He uses ghost(spirit)  as people's language to explain so people who would understand.

 

[ChiDragon]

1 hour ago, Daniel said:

In the TTC is there any "thing" or "non-thing" that is not 道?

 

Ignoring what is written, according to your intuition, is there any "thing" or "non-thing" that is not 道?

Everything is Tao. Everything is there for a reason. They follow the principles of Tao. Tao is the principle.

[Daniel]

36 minutes ago, ChiDragon said:

Everything is Tao. Everything is there for a reason. They follow the principles of Tao. Tao is the principle.

 

The principle AND an origin?

[ChiDragon]

1 minute ago, Daniel said:

 

The principle AND an origin?

Yes, Tao is existed before anything.

[Daniel]

4 minutes ago, ChiDragon said:

Yes, Tao is existed before anything.

 

it is an origin and it is originating?  whatever it is, this nameless-pimordial-principle, it is 常?  on-going?

 

 

Edited September 19, 2023 by Daniel

[ChiDragon]

5 minutes ago, Daniel said:

it is 常?  on-going?

Yes, Tao is eternal.

Edited September 19, 2023 by ChiDragon

[Cobie]

 

13 hours ago, Mig said:

… Later in history we see how many terms changed … as well as mixing Buddhist or confucianist concepts. …

Exactly.

 

 

Edited September 19, 2023 by Cobie

[Daniel]

On 9/17/2023 at 7:45 PM, ChiDragon said:

Yes, the only spirit in the TTC would be Tao.

 

When you use the english word "spirit" above, am I understanding?  You are not referring to 神?

 

( Hopefully it's clear I'm not arguing; I'm just asking questions, and I very much appreciate listening to the answers. )

 

Edit:  Correction:  You are not referring to 神 in the context of the TTC and Laotze's philosophy?

 

Edited September 19, 2023 by Daniel

[ChiDragon]

3 minutes ago, Daniel said:

When you use the english word "spirit" above, am I understanding?  You are not referring to 神?

No, I was referring to 靈(灵)魂。

[Daniel]

38 minutes ago, ChiDragon said:

No, I was referring to 靈(灵)魂。

 

Thank you.

 

4 hours ago, Daniel said:

Chapter 39:  昔之得一者：天得一以清；地得一以寧；神得一以靈；谷得一以盈；萬物得一以生；侯王得一以為天下貞。其致之，天無以清，將恐裂；地無以寧，將恐發；神無以靈，將恐歇；谷無以盈，將恐竭；萬物無以生，將恐滅；侯王無以貴高將恐蹶。故貴以賤為本，高以下為基。是以侯王自稱孤、寡、不穀。此非以賤為本耶？非乎？故致數譽無譽。不欲琭琭如玉，珞珞如石。

 

There are only 2 occurences of 靈 in the TTC.  Also Chapter 39.  And it's interesting 神 and 靈 are being brought very close together here.

 

Just on first glance, what's most intersting to me is the pattern:  

 

以靈...  以靈

 

神得一以靈  contrasted with  神無以靈?

 

Which would indicate:

 

"  神得一" and "神無" are being contrasted in the context of this chapter (39), but are both similar in the manner of "以靈"?

 

Question:  in "神得一以靈",in context, is 神 subordinate to 靈?

Question:  in "神無以靈" same question.  is 神 subordinate to 靈?

 

I mean "subordinate" literally, just in order, not master/slave.  Is it  靈 then 神?  Since these two ideas are brought close to together, I am trying to understand their differences and similarities in this context, since, right or wrong, they are both translated at times as "spirit" in english.

 

Edited September 19, 2023 by Daniel

[ChiDragon]

51 minutes ago, Daniel said:

Question:  in "神得一以靈",in context, is 神 subordinate Can you c to 靈?

Question:  in "神無以靈"

神得一以靈

Deity has Tao(得一) will have the effectiveness of the magical power.

51 minutes ago, Daniel said:

神無以靈，將恐歇

If deity do not have the effectiveness of the magical power, then it will rest soon. Rest soon means deity is no longer a deity.

 

以靈 doesn't mean spirit here. It means the effectiveness of the magical power.

Edited September 19, 2023 by ChiDragon

[Daniel]

@ChiDragon,

 

Small problem?  Using the english word "deity" in Chapter 39 produces a problem if Laotze's philosophy is to be understood as the english word "atheist"?

 

Edited September 19, 2023 by Daniel

[Michael Sternbach]

On 18.9.2023 at 8:48 PM, ChiDragon said:

I am not familiar with the World Spirit. Would you please give a little explanation about it. Thank you.

 

The World Spirit (sometimes used interchangeably with "the World Soul", although the two terms can refer to different things) is an all-encompassing field of subtle energy whence everything originates. It is considered to be alive and conscious in the ancient Natural Philosophy. 

 

It can also be seen as the sum total of the individual spirits of things, beings, celestial bodies etc.

 

Thus it interconnects all things. It even interconnects "Heaven and Earth".

 

Typical symbols for the World Spirit, especially in Western alchemy, include the dragon and the snake. And also the hermaphrodite, representing its dual and thereby mediating nature. 

[Daniel]

3 minutes ago, Michael Sternbach said:

 

The World Spirit (sometimes used interchangeably with "the World Soul", although the two terms can refer to different things) is an all-encompassing field of subtle energy whence everything originates. It is considered to be alive and conscious in the ancient Natural Philosophy.

 

Does it have agency?  Does it make choices?  Does it have preferences?  Affiinities?  Aversions?  When you say conscious, to me that means self-awareness, but, basically nothing else.  Is that what you mean by conscious?

 

Edited September 19, 2023 by Daniel

[Nungali]

23 hours ago, ChiDragon said:

"Spirit" in the DDJ

To my clear understanding, the OP was asking about the "spirit" in the DDJ other than the translation of the  English word "spirit". My response was to answer what the DDJ was really telling us. Peace!

 

Oh sure .   But still the english word spirit is used in translation . For those of us that cannot read or interpret the original language ... we stuck with it . 

 

But ,  how do you think my comments on English  word 'spirit'  relate  ( if at all ) to what the term means in the TTC ?  - thats the crux of it .

[Michael Sternbach]

19 minutes ago, Daniel said:

Does it have agency?  Does it make choices?

 

Seen in its entirety, no. Not of its own accord. It's essentially a medium for the exchange of information between the things--on all levels--that set it in motion. Much in the way  water and air can carry waves.

 

19 minutes ago, Daniel said:

Does it have preferences?  Affiinities?  Aversions?

 

Insofar it can be attracted and accumulated by certain things and places, yes. Which is a matter of resonance, though, not of conscious choice.

 

19 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 When you say conscious, to me that means self-awareness, but, basically nothing else.  Is that what you mean by conscious?

 

It has a passive or receptive kind of consciousness that simply passes on what it has been imbued with. So (self-)awareness would sound about right.

[ChiDragon]

53 minutes ago, Daniel said:

@ChiDragon,

 

Small problem?  Using the english word "deity" in Chapter 39 produces a problem if Laotze's philosophy is to be understood as the english word "atheist"?

 

 Laotze is an atheist and naturalist. He uses ghost(spirit)  as example in people's language to explain so people who would understand.