|
|
Post by sree on Oct 25, 2022 22:37:06 GMT -5
Why can't you guys be simple and talk down-to-earth sane? It's always poetry: words that evoke imaginary stuff.
I have to admit that I got swept away by you fellas and started spouting word salads until someNOTHING jolted me awake.
Word salads are pretty hypnotic. It's no different from speaking in tongues. I don't know if you approve of Mitchell's translation of the Tao Te Ching. But it starts with " the Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao." No, I don't. White men cannot grasp the Chinese mind. Even today we see China as the enemy. Below is my attempt to translate the Chinese script (Chapter One, first four verses) directly into English.
道可道，It seems like the way
非常道；It’s so much like the way
名可名，It seems like the named
非常名。It’s so much like the named.
Classical Chinese script is so compact and opaque. Just three characters in each verse; yet, they compel a lifetime of reflection.
|
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Oct 25, 2022 23:53:07 GMT -5
I don't know if you approve of Mitchell's translation of the Tao Te Ching. But it starts with " the Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao." No, I don't. White men cannot grasp the Chinese mind. Even today we see China as the enemy. Below is my attempt to translate the Chinese script (Chapter One, first four verses) directly into English.
道可道，It seems like the way
非常道；It’s so much like the way
名可名，It seems like the named
非常名。It’s so much like the named.
Classical Chinese script is so compact and opaque. Just three characters in each verse; yet, they compel a lifetime of reflection.
I'll take your word for it. The priests at the Zendo said if you could describe it wasn't Zen. Some of them were Japanese. I have no investment in the idea so I don't care to argue. If you believe you can describe how God works. Have at it. No word salads please.😁 |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 26, 2022 1:00:01 GMT -5
Why can't you guys be simple and talk down-to-earth sane? It's always poetry: words that evoke imaginary stuff. I have to admit that I got swept away by you fellas and started spouting word salads until someNOTHING jolted me awake. Word salads are pretty hypnotic. It's no different from speaking in tongues. I don't know if you approve of Mitchell's translation of the Tao Te Ching. But it starts with " the Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao." Yes, Mitchell has one of the best translations. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 26, 2022 1:33:22 GMT -5
I don't know if you approve of Mitchell's translation of the Tao Te Ching. But it starts with " the Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao." No, I don't. White men cannot grasp the Chinese mind. Even today we see China as the enemy. Below is my attempt to translate the Chinese script (Chapter One, first four verses) directly into English.
道可道，It seems like the way
非常道；It’s so much like the way
名可名，It seems like the named
非常名。It’s so much like the named.
Classical Chinese script is so compact and opaque. Just three characters in each verse; yet, they compel a lifetime of reflection.
Your translation is incorrect. Probably because you have no knowledge of classical Chinese grammar and just relied on google translate. That said, the first chapter is actually one of the easiest to translate. In any case, if you have trouble translating classical Chinese texts, check with Legge, not with google. Google can't even get modern Chinese right most of the time. And as a matter of fact, most Chinese don't understand classical Chinese either, except for some standard phrases. So don't expect miracles from these AI tools. So, check with the Legge's translations first, he's been some sort of unofficial universal standard for translations of the Chinese classics into English. If some of his translations shouldn't make sense, then check with other translations like Mitchell and only then take a look at the original characters. Classical Chinese grammar is very complicated. It's not like reading Latin. Latin is a highly inflected language and therefore much more precise. What Latin does with word endings, Chinese (very much like English!) has to do with word order or grammatical particles. And there are a ton of these particles that you must know in order to translate it correctly. No dictionary can help you here. There are also different versions of the Daodejing. The older versions have the absolute minimum of these particles, the later versions have more or these. The line you quoted is the older, minimalist version: 道可道 非常道 名可名 非常名 Later you can find another version with an extra particle at the end: 道可道也 非恒道也 名可名也 非恒名也 Some texts can only be understood via the commentaries. Because sometimes you will find characters that show up in no dictionary, but that are actually versions of other commonly used characters. They sometimes replaced characters because of pollical reasons (like replacing 常 with 恒 or vice versa). Reading can differ significantly, too. And different historical periods have different styles. The Daodejing is extremely minimalistic classical Chinese. When you read it and translate it, you really get the feeling that this is a really old text. The Biyanlu, on the other hand, is a weird mixture of later classical and almost colloquial Chinese, it feels a lot more contemporary. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 26, 2022 6:03:49 GMT -5
Thanks. I consider it accurate take some people have completed the journey. I'm pretty sure Jesus existed, that he could read and write, he didn't leave a written record (that we know of, I presume he didn't). It's probably fairly accurate that Lao Tzu was 'retiring from the world' and would have rode off alone, but one guy asked for a record. It's also probably true that other people over the years contributed to the Tao Te Ching, and even Lao Tzu probably didn't originate all of the part he wrote, he had probably collected some stuff along the way. It's reported Buddha didn't teach all that he knew, he was interested in getting people free of suffering. Other's that got a long way have left a record. But any abstraction is only a map, even if the territory had-been traversed. I'm 100% sure Jesus gave interior practices. So you are correct, an abstract expression is just a puff of smoke. Gurdjieff left a very long and very wordy expression, 1238 pages, the first series, Beelzebub's Tales to His Grandson, and the the second and third series. In 1924, after a very serious auto accident, while he was recuperating, he decided it was necessary to at least record in theory the teaching, he said exactly that. He gave no methods in Beelzebub's Tales, just theory. He gave no methods in Meetings With Remarkable Men, just stories of men who knew practices. Throughout MWRM he promised to explain in the third series further about what the remarkable men he knew taught him, and what he learned from them (not necessarily the same thing). He somewhat gave some practices in Life Is Real Only Then, When "I Am", the third series, but nothing anywhere near what he had promised in MWRM, to do, what is promised there. And you can't really decipher what he wrote about practices in Life Is Real, unless you already know, you won't be able to attach meaning to the words that do. So Gurdjieff taught there is an inner teaching and an outer teaching, and the inner teaching is never given in the outer teaching. The practices are really all that matter, but they can give life to words. The practices are everything, working with attention and awareness, is everything. I'm not sure that it's accurate that most people here believe there is a self that reincarnates. When I think NDiverse, I think, WWZD_? How can an imaginary self reincarnate? When one sees through the illusion of self, that's it, that's the whole ball of wax, journey over. But that's what I'm saying isn't wholly accurate. So I'm just inviting discussion. I appreciate it. There is a pretty good book by Dainin Katagiri, You Have to Say Something: Manifesting Zen Insight. He's about as Zen as Zen can get, his books are very valuable. He basically says, even though nothing significant can be put into words, you have to say something. I wholly agree with this. But there is more accessible to us than this little pea-brain is capable of. I'm in agreement with Gurdief's view of practice. Sounds like Dogen. True about folks here scoffing at rebirth. But this place is densely populated with homegrown ND folk. I mean overall. I've come to recognize my own scoff at the topic as partially sourced in 2nd-hand Christian conditioning. There's a very visceral immediacy in recognizing that no one life, let alone one moment, ever repeats. The 'pilgrim's take on the topic is quite refined (I explored it with him in detail years ago). Quite sophisticated and seasoned from his considerable self-education on spiritual topics, including nonduality. It's certainly the human adult thing to do to recognize the futility of repeating patterns, after all.  But I'd opine that not all repeating patterns are futile. Some can be quite beautiful, actually. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 26, 2022 6:13:10 GMT -5
It is futile because the impulse has no drive behind it. Futility regarding just how no-thing masquerades as everything.  The false sense of self is actually quite mechanistic. It's a cosmic irony that the intellect is the architect of it's own prison: the root and dynamics of the mistaken identity can be described, right down to excruciating detail.  Even the key to the imaginary cage is no mystery .. just ... stop. The mystery, as I think you might allude, is simply THIS. And .. THIS? .. There is a great potential for joy, and even that, is saying far too much. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 26, 2022 6:16:17 GMT -5
Futility regarding just how no-thing masquerades as everything. Why can't you guys be simple and talk down-to-earth sane? It's always poetry: words that evoke imaginary stuff. I have to admit that I got swept away by you fellas and started spouting word salads until someNOTHING jolted me awake. Word salads are pretty hypnotic. It's no different from speaking in tongues. .. or what a songwriter does. The trick to keep from getting bitten by snakes is to refrain from taking credit for the content, as that is the root of all distortion of the energy as it passes through .. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 26, 2022 6:20:33 GMT -5
I don't know if you approve of Mitchell's translation of the Tao Te Ching. But it starts with " the Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao." No, I don't. White men cannot grasp the Chinese mind. Even today we see China as the enemy. Below is my attempt to translate the Chinese script (Chapter One, first four verses) directly into English.
道可道，It seems like the way
非常道；It’s so much like the way
名可名，It seems like the named
非常名。It’s so much like the named.
Classical Chinese script is so compact and opaque. Just three characters in each verse; yet, they compel a lifetime of reflection.
Oh, that's rather fascinating. Who knew that "cultural appropriation" went back that far?  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 26, 2022 6:23:04 GMT -5
No, I don't. White men cannot grasp the Chinese mind. Even today we see China as the enemy. Below is my attempt to translate the Chinese script (Chapter One, first four verses) directly into English.
道可道，It seems like the way
非常道；It’s so much like the way
名可名，It seems like the named
非常名。It’s so much like the named.
Classical Chinese script is so compact and opaque. Just three characters in each verse; yet, they compel a lifetime of reflection.
I'll take your word for it. The priests at the Zendo said if you could describe it wasn't Zen. Some of them were Japanese. I have no investment in the idea so I don't care to argue. If you believe you can describe how God works. Have at it. No word salads please.😁 How dare you decline to debate my ham sandwich. How dare you? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Oct 26, 2022 8:57:39 GMT -5
No, I don't. White men cannot grasp the Chinese mind. Even today we see China as the enemy. Below is my attempt to translate the Chinese script (Chapter One, first four verses) directly into English.
道可道，It seems like the way
非常道；It’s so much like the way
名可名，It seems like the named
非常名。It’s so much like the named.
Classical Chinese script is so compact and opaque. Just three characters in each verse; yet, they compel a lifetime of reflection.
Oh, that's rather fascinating. Who knew that "cultural appropriation" went back that far? Cool article, I browsed it, will go back and read in full. Too bad the Celtic Church died out. It is somewhat being revived by the literature. Celtic Christianity, like Eastern Orthodox Christian theologians (mostly) did not have Augustine's concept of original sin. Pelagius, who debated Augustine on the matter, was a Celtic Christian. Too bad Augustine won the debate. In the Tao Te Ching it says One became two, two became three and the three became the 10,000 things. This is not arbitrary. You find triads everywhere, they are part of the structure of the universe, that is, they are the basis of your repeating patterns. We all know yin and yang, the third is more illusive. I explored this, I'd say the third is the central unmoving point, it's a point of balance. Take a pendulum, it swings back and forth, yin and yang, where it is attached, is the unmoving point. The TTC gives another example, a wheel, it revolves around a central unmoving point. A lever is another example. You want to move a large rock, that's the passive yin. You want to apply force to move the rock, you have a pole and active yang force, your muscles. But you need a central unmoving point of pivot, a fulcrum. Those are your 3 forces. From yin and yang the whole I Ching is evolved, the 64 hexagrams. You could actually go to 128, but they decided 64 'situations' were enough to give a picture of life, in repeating patterns. So at 64, it shift back to 1 instead of going to 65. So where is the third force? The Supreme Ultimate Tai Chi symbol is a moving symbol, The black dot in the white expands until it is almost completely black, and at the extreme is becomes the black with the white dot, and the cycle continues. This movement is finetuned in the 64 hexagrams of the I Ching, yin turning into yang and yang turning into yin. The I Ching represents all of life, in time, and in the present moment, and in cycles. So the point of the shift, the pivot, is the third force. Third balancing force is a kind of string holding together yin and yang, which are really One, they are all One, the three are one. Where have we heard that before? |
|
|
|
Post by sree on Oct 26, 2022 10:44:09 GMT -5
No, I don't. White men cannot grasp the Chinese mind. Even today we see China as the enemy. Below is my attempt to translate the Chinese script (Chapter One, first four verses) directly into English.
道可道，It seems like the way
非常道；It’s so much like the way
名可名，It seems like the named
非常名。It’s so much like the named.
Classical Chinese script is so compact and opaque. Just three characters in each verse; yet, they compel a lifetime of reflection.
Your translation is incorrect. Probably because you have no knowledge of classical Chinese grammar and just relied on google translate. That said, the first chapter is actually one of the easiest to translate. In any case, if you have trouble translating classical Chinese texts, check with Legge, not with google. Google can't even get modern Chinese right most of the time. And as a matter of fact, most Chinese don't understand classical Chinese either, except for some standard phrases. So don't expect miracles from these AI tools. So, check with the Legge's translations first, he's been some sort of unofficial universal standard for translations of the Chinese classics into English. If some of his translations shouldn't make sense, then check with other translations like Mitchell and only then take a look at the original characters. Classical Chinese grammar is very complicated. It's not like reading Latin. Latin is a highly inflected language and therefore much more precise. What Latin does with word endings, Chinese (very much like English!) has to do with word order or grammatical particles. And there are a ton of these particles that you must know in order to translate it correctly. No dictionary can help you here. There are also different versions of the Daodejing. The older versions have the absolute minimum of these particles, the later versions have more or these. The line you quoted is the older, minimalist version: 道可道 非常道 名可名 非常名 Later you can find another version with an extra particle at the end: 道可道也 非恒道也 名可名也 非恒名也 Some texts can only be understood via the commentaries. Because sometimes you will find characters that show up in no dictionary, but that are actually versions of other commonly used characters. They sometimes replaced characters because of pollical reasons (like replacing 常 with 恒 or vice versa). Reading can differ significantly, too. And different historical periods have different styles. The Daodejing is extremely minimalistic classical Chinese. When you read it and translate it, you really get the feeling that this is a really old text. The Biyanlu, on the other hand, is a weird mixture of later classical and almost colloquial Chinese, it feels a lot more contemporary. You want to engage me in a battle on who reigns supreme on the study of classical Chinese? Ok, I will take you on.
Don't cite authorities. As Krishnamurti said, kick gurus aside. Be a light to yourself. It's a battle between you and me.
What is your meaning for the character 可 ?
|
|
|
|
Post by sree on Oct 26, 2022 10:57:38 GMT -5
No, I don't. White men cannot grasp the Chinese mind. Even today we see China as the enemy. Below is my attempt to translate the Chinese script (Chapter One, first four verses) directly into English.
道可道，It seems like the way
非常道；It’s so much like the way
名可名，It seems like the named
非常名。It’s so much like the named.
Classical Chinese script is so compact and opaque. Just three characters in each verse; yet, they compel a lifetime of reflection.
The priests at the Zendo said if you could describe it wasn't Zen. Some of them were Japanese. I have no investment in the idea so I don't care to argue. If you believe you can describe how God works. Have at it. No word salads please.😁 Take my word for what? I was just showing my ATTEMPT to translate the Chinese characters interpreted by Mitchell. Even among Chinese philosophers, there is no argument about who has got it right and who is mistaken and wrong. Those guys just share reflections of the obscure. It is unlike the western philosophical method which is instructive. Just look at Reefs knee-jerk response to my translation. He has all guns blazing to shoot me down. So unChinese. |
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Oct 26, 2022 11:17:59 GMT -5
I'll take your word for it. The priests at the Zendo said if you could describe it wasn't Zen. Some of them were Japanese. I have no investment in the idea so I don't care to argue. If you believe you can describe how God works. Have at it. No word salads please.😁 I was just showing my ATTEMPT to translate the Chinese characters interpreted by Mitchell. Even among Chinese philosophers, there is no argument about who has got it right and who is mistaken and wrong. Those guys just share reflections of the obscure. It is unlike the western philosophical method which is instructive. Just look at Reefs knee-jerk response to my translation. He has all guns blazing to shoot me down. So unChinese. That your translation trumps Mitchell's. Though Reefs sees it differently. So you're an Eastern Westerner, an American with Chinese sensibilities. It's hard to fathom. Can't help but notice that you did what you criticized to Mitchell. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 26, 2022 11:22:17 GMT -5
Your translation is incorrect. Probably because you have no knowledge of classical Chinese grammar and just relied on google translate. That said, the first chapter is actually one of the easiest to translate. In any case, if you have trouble translating classical Chinese texts, check with Legge, not with google. Google can't even get modern Chinese right most of the time. And as a matter of fact, most Chinese don't understand classical Chinese either, except for some standard phrases. So don't expect miracles from these AI tools. So, check with the Legge's translations first, he's been some sort of unofficial universal standard for translations of the Chinese classics into English. If some of his translations shouldn't make sense, then check with other translations like Mitchell and only then take a look at the original characters. Classical Chinese grammar is very complicated. It's not like reading Latin. Latin is a highly inflected language and therefore much more precise. What Latin does with word endings, Chinese (very much like English!) has to do with word order or grammatical particles. And there are a ton of these particles that you must know in order to translate it correctly. No dictionary can help you here. There are also different versions of the Daodejing. The older versions have the absolute minimum of these particles, the later versions have more or these. The line you quoted is the older, minimalist version: 道可道 非常道 名可名 非常名 Later you can find another version with an extra particle at the end: 道可道也 非恒道也 名可名也 非恒名也 Some texts can only be understood via the commentaries. Because sometimes you will find characters that show up in no dictionary, but that are actually versions of other commonly used characters. They sometimes replaced characters because of pollical reasons (like replacing 常 with 恒 or vice versa). Reading can differ significantly, too. And different historical periods have different styles. The Daodejing is extremely minimalistic classical Chinese. When you read it and translate it, you really get the feeling that this is a really old text. The Biyanlu, on the other hand, is a weird mixture of later classical and almost colloquial Chinese, it feels a lot more contemporary. You want to engage me in a battle on who reigns supreme on the study of classical Chinese? Ok, I will take you on. Don't cite authorities. As Krishnamurti said, kick gurus aside. Be a light to yourself. It's a battle between you and me. What is your meaning for the character 可 ?
Actually, I didn't really write that in reply to you, but more with a broader audience in mind. I already knew when I wrote it that you wouldn't be able to take the constructive criticism and well-meaning guidance. I'm not interested in any battles with you. From my perspective, you've shown again and again that you are no match for me on a wide range of topics, if your interest should be in a battle of wits. Not to mention any dharma battles. Taking you on for another round would just being unnecessarily cruel. I have no interest in that. That doesn't help anyone. You see, there are many subjects you talk about with great conviction as if you actually knew something, but usually it turns out that your knowledge is limited to what anyone could find on wikipedia or via google. What a joke! Don't waste my time! Show me something real, something with substance. And forget about that Krishnamurti character, will you? |
|
|
|
Post by sree on Oct 26, 2022 11:50:16 GMT -5
Take my word for what? I was just showing my ATTEMPT to translate the Chinese characters interpreted by Mitchell. Even among Chinese philosophers, there is no argument about who has got it right and who is mistaken and wrong. Those guys just share reflections of the obscure. It is unlike the western philosophical method which is instructive. Just look at Reefs knee-jerk response to my translation. He has all guns blazing to shoot me down. So unChinese. Though Reefs sees it differently. So you're an Eastern Westerner, an American with Chinese sensibilities. It's hard to fathom. Can't help but notice that you did what you criticized to Mitchell. Is that your perception? By showing you my literal "word for word" translation of three characters into English, I meant to show that Mitchell was interpreting what he thought those characters were alluding. The word "eternal" is nowhere in the Chinese text.
"Eternal" infuses a spiritual nature to the Chinese work. The ancient scriptures of China relate to the cultivation of correctness in human conduct in the real world. Spirituality was disdained as superstition.
|
|
The false sense of self is actually quite mechanistic. It's a cosmic irony that the intellect is the architect of it's own prison: the root and dynamics of the mistaken identity can be described, right down to excruciating detail. 