You and Wu in Chapter One

[ChiDragon]

Chapter 1 
Case 1.
3. 無，名天地之始。
4. 有，名萬物之母。
7. 此兩者同出而異名，
7. These two come from one origin but differ in name,

Case 2.
3. 無名，天地之始。
4. 有名，萬物之母。
7. 此兩者同出而異名，
7. These two come from one origin but differ in name,

How would you prefer to read Lines 3 and 4? I would pay close attention to Line 7 to make my decision.

[Mig]

And what is the reason of the question?

  無名 and 有名 are key terms in the DDJ, and are found also in chapters 32, 37, and 41. It seems to me that isolating one term from one chapter may fall into confusion and the terms or the lines may be lost in translation. The editions by Heshang Gong and Wang Bi are popular and are used as a reference with all the commentaries from different scholars throughout ages. It seems to me that the importance is to know how those lines are helpful to understand the whole text and how to apply that knowledge for those who are interested in using it as practical manual and cultivation tool. Your thoughts?

[whocoulditbe?]

I suppose it's strange to say that the nameless differs in name from the named. Could 異 refer to the difference between presence and absence of a name, or only to difference between names? I.e., is it closer to the meaning of English "difference" in the sense of subtraction between quantities, or of qualitative variety?

Edited September 23, 2023 by whocoulditbe?

[ChiDragon]

2 hours ago, Mig said:

And what is the reason of the question?

  無名 and 有名 are key terms in the DDJ, and are found also in chapters 32, 37, and 41. It seems to me that isolating one term from one chapter may fall into confusion and the terms or the lines may be lost in translation. The editions by Heshang Gong and Wang Bi are popular and are used as a reference with all the commentaries from different scholars throughout ages. It seems to me that the importance is to know how those lines are helpful to understand the whole text and how to apply that knowledge for those who are interested in using it as practical manual and cultivation tool. Your thoughts?

無名 and 有名 are are adjectives here.

What about in Chapter 40?
3.天下萬物生於有，
4.有生於無。
"You" and "wu" are standing alone as nouns in this chapter. Why did you ignore this? Should they be the key terms also.
 

3 hours ago, ChiDragon said:

7. 此兩者同出而異名，
7. These two come from one origin but differ in name,

In Line 7, it is talking about two names are differ. Where would you find those two names in this Chapter 1?
 

Edited September 23, 2023 by ChiDragon

[ChiDragon]

2 hours ago, Mig said:

And what is the reason of the question?

It is because people are reading it both ways. The modern Chinese version are reading "有" and "無" that are separated from 無名 and 有名. The former are nouns and the latter are adjectives. Hence, it would change the whole meaning of Chapter 1.

Edited September 23, 2023 by ChiDragon

[Taoist Texts]

6 hours ago, whocoulditbe? said:

I suppose it's strange to say that the nameless differs in name from the named. Could 異 refer to the difference between presence and absence of a name, or only to difference between names?

thats a good guess, closer to the truth than the usual understanding. but still not quite it.

what nobody understands in this chapter is that 異名  (different names), does not refer to 'these two' at all. Instead,  異名  (different names)  refers to  万物  (all things).

Edited September 23, 2023 by Taoist Texts

[ChiDragon]

18 hours ago, ChiDragon said:

7. 此兩者同出而異名，

7. These two come from one origin but differ in name,

Line 7 is specifically stated: These two(此兩者) from one origin(同出) but differ in names(而異名).

 

Where does it say all things (万物)？

Edited September 23, 2023 by ChiDragon

[Taoist Texts]

33 minutes ago, ChiDragon said:

Where does it say all things (万物)？

 

Quote

 

el·lip·sis

/əˈlipsəs/noun the omission from speech or writing of a word or words that are superfluous or able to be understood from contextual clues.

[Cobie]

 

3 hours ago, Taoist Texts said:

… 異名  (different names)  refers to  万物  (all things).

 

I wonder how that fits, could you please post your translation of Ch. 1 ?

 

 

[Taoist Texts]

41 minutes ago, Cobie said:

I wonder how that fits, could you please post your translation of Ch. 1 ?

sure. In fact Legge got it almost right. Note that he does not refer 異名  (different names)  to 'these two'

Quote

 

 the Mother of all things.
....
Under these two aspects, it is really the same; but as development takes place, it receives the different names

https://ctext.org/dao-de-jing/ens

 

he refers different names to development. And the development of the two aspects of dao is all the things which develop out of dao, each of them getting a different name.

[Cobie]

@Taoist Texts I didn’t ask about James Legge.

[Taoist Texts]

1 hour ago, Cobie said:

@Taoist Texts I didn’t ask about James Legge.

i was trying to save myself some typing. but all right i will type it up. cant say no to Cobie

 

道可道，非常道。dao which can be spoken is not an eternal dao

名可名，非常名。a name which can be named is not an eternal name

无名天地之始；the Heaven-Earth begin in the Nameless

有名万物之母。the Namefull is the mother of all things

故常无欲，以观其妙；the eternal desirelessness is the marvel

常有欲，以观其徼。 the eternal desirefullness is the fringe

此两者，同出而异名，these two together produce all differently named things

同谓之玄。 together these two are called the Dark

玄之又玄，which is the double Dark

衆妙之门。the gate to the multi-marvelous

[ChiDragon]

18 hours ago, ChiDragon said:

Chapter 1 
Case 1.
3. 無，名天地之始。
4. 有，名萬物之母。
7. 此兩者同出而異名，
7. These two come from one origin but differ in name,

Case 1 would be my choice. Here is the reason why. Chapter 1 is the introduction of Tao and should be stand alone without any external influence.

There is no doubt in my mind that Lines 3 and 4 spelled out the names 無 and 有 for Tao at two different states. Tao was named as 無 at the beginning of the sky and earth. Tao was named as 有 when all thing are being created.

Line 7 is very clear that is talking about two things. Numbers don't lie. These two things are coming from one source but just the names are different. It is definitely was talking about two names. By context, these two names are 無 and 有 and came from one source which is Tao(道).
 

[Daniel]

17 hours ago, whocoulditbe? said:

Could 異 refer to the difference between presence and absence of a name

 

When something cannot be named, it is absolutely formless?  As soon as a label is attached to it, even the if the label is "lacking-form" or "form-less" then a form exists for it in the mind and the game is over, a failure, for describing 道?  In a way I feel like I have an advantage as an outsider right now.  Because when I see 道 on the page or on screen, very little is produced in my mind.  Nothing is formed at all.  But this is not the same as 無.  It has a name, it has a form, in my mind, as we've written about.   It's form in my mind is negating a form.

 

 

Edited September 23, 2023 by Daniel

[ChiDragon]

19 hours ago, ChiDragon said:

Case 2.
3. 無名，天地之始。
4. 有名，萬物之母。
7. 此兩者同出而異名，
7. These two come from one origin but differ in name

Case two is out of contest. Here is the reason why.
Line 7 is very clear that is talking about two things. Numbers don't lie. These two things are coming from one source but just the names are different. It is definitely was talking about two names. By context, these two names are 無 and 有 and came from one source which is Tao(道).
 

In Lines 3 and 4 無名(has no name) and 有名(has a name) are adjectives. They are not names. Therefore, it is out of context with Line 7 for the reason above. 無名(has no name) and 有名(has a name) may be a description for Tao at different state but are not the names for Tao.
 

[Daniel]

15 minutes ago, ChiDragon said:

Case 1 would be my choice. Here is the reason why. Chapter 1 is the introduction of Tao and should be stand alone without any external influence.

 

Agreed.  I think that makes perfect sense.

 

 

15 minutes ago, ChiDragon said:

There is no doubt in my mind that Lines 3 and 4 spelled out the names 無 and 有 for Tao at two different states. Tao was named as 無 at the beginning of the sky and earth. Tao was named as 有 when all thing are being created.

Line 7 is very clear that is talking about two things. Numbers don't lie. These two things are coming from one source but just the names are different. It is definitely was talking about two names. By context, these two names are 無 and 有 and came from one source which is Tao(道).
 

 

If this is the absolute beginning.  The beginning of the beginning.  Then I have a question:  who or what named 無 and 有?  I am not going backwards and supposing any sort of "spiritual" interpretation.  I am asking, is the concept of "naming" here intended literally?  I do not see how it could be intended literally, because there is no one and nothing to produce the name and label 無 and 有 in a literal manner.  If so, then, something else is being described here?  Something more mysterious and beautiful, in my option.

 

 

[Daniel]

1 minute ago, Daniel said:

Something more mysterious and beautiful, in my option.

 

I think this supports case 1, BTW.

[ChiDragon]

10 minutes ago, Daniel said:

If this is the absolute beginning.  The beginning of the beginning.  Then I have a question:  who or what named 無 and 有? 

It has to be aftermath by someone. It is obvious that was the author of the TTJ  which is Laotze. No?

FYI Tao doesn't even exist. Tao was created by Laotze. That is why he wrote the Tao Te Jing.

Edited September 23, 2023 by ChiDragon

[Cobie]

11 minutes ago, ChiDragon said:

… Tao doesn't … exist. …

[Cobie]

@ChiDragon  道人  (above your profile picture), does that mean you are a Chinese Buddhist?

 

 

Edited September 23, 2023 by Cobie

[ChiDragon]

1 minute ago, Cobie said:

@ChiDragon  道人  (above your profile picture), does that mean you are a Chinese Buddhist?

 

 

道人 is a Taoist
和尚 is a Buddhist

[Cobie]

13 minutes ago, ChiDragon said:

道人 is a Taoist …

Well you are a novel type of Taoist that doesn’t believe Tao exists. No?

 

 

Edited September 23, 2023 by Cobie

[ChiDragon]

1 minute ago, Cobie said:

Well you are a novel Taoist that doesn’t believe Tao exists. No?

I look at things objectively. I believe in the principles of Tao. The reason I study the TTJ is to explore what Tao is all about from the philosophy of LaoTze. One who study the principles of Tao may be also considered as a Taoist. That is why I called myself a semi-Taoist. Is that ok with Cobie?

[Cobie]

1 minute ago, ChiDragon said:

…  Is that ok with Cobie?

Once I have recovered from the shock! Yes. 
 

 

[Daniel]

43 minutes ago, ChiDragon said:

It has to be aftermath by someone. It is obvious that was the author of the TTJ  which is Laotze. No?

FYI Tao doesn't even exist. Tao was created by Laotze. That is why he wrote the Tao Te Jing.

 

I am listening to your answer, and I am not arguing...