PO Box 6945,
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).
Someone has to be the first to produce that, which others cite.Ok, thanks for all that but let's take a moment to start citing references that anyone with an interest in the subject can follow... Please, don't present all that without either taking complete claim for its authorship or citing sources. I don't like to be guessing the provenance of materials and ideas. Again, please.
If that is the case, then you show that you don't understand at all the grammar that you are dealing with. You are fabricating sentences which fail to be grammatically sound, and even if we ignore that fact you fail to translate your fabrications properly:The only provenance needed is an elementary grammar
Apart from the fact that this is complete rubbish, when a sentence ends with bu 不 this character should not be simply translated as 'not' but as '...or not?', turning the sentence into a question (古代汉语虚词词典, p. 36-37).The 1th vertical line: heaven strong son its own not
And what on earth does that mean? How can one 'enthrone change'? If you look at the examples of li 立 with the meaning of 'to ascend the throne' you will see that it does not take an object (漢語大詞典, Vol. 8, p. 371). Your translation doesn't make sense.The 1th: thunder single son enthrones change
Fang 方 does not mean 'the way', the closest that comes to it is 'direction' (漢語大詞典, Vol. 6, p. 1549). Don't trust modern dictionaries when you are dealing with an ancient text.The 2th: air ruler uses do not the way
You didn't break any code, you just made something up. Please give me the titles of 'the' dictionaries, and prove that your translation is grammatically correct by citing proper sources. You also don't explain why you favour a Mawangdui version of the Daodejing over the received version. In fact you don't explain anything. Linking the Image text to the Lianshan (or better: the misconceptions that you have of this text) is as fancy as saying that King Wen was an alien astronaut who wrote down the manual of his spaceship.I was the first to break the code of Dao De Jing chapter 1.
My translation is 100% correct according to ancient chinese grammar and the dictionaries.
The few fragments that we have of the Lianshan (if we accept these as genuine) are not enough to arrive at such a conclusion.Lianshan had only two not six linetexts like the Guicang and the Zhouyi.
No, the few fragments that we have do not automatically lead to that conclusion.That'll say Lianshan had only changing trigrams and not changing lines.
Fanciful reasoning without any foundation whatsoever. Source, please. Besides that, the Lianshan fragments give an entirely different Xiang text. I think it would be more useful to do something with that.Hexagram 32, Heng, Thunder above Wind
The air of thunder, the son of a single ruler, uses to enthrone the unchanging way.
If the trigram above is changing: Thunder single son enthrones change.
If the trigram below is changing: Air ruler uses do not the way
Ditto.Hexagram 1, Tian, Heaven above Heaven.
The cirkulation of heaven, the son of a strong ruler, uses its own boundary line not breathing.
If the trigram above is changing: heaven strong son its own not
If the trigram below is changing: cirkulation ruler uses boundary line breathing
The Zhouyi and Guicang are not that difficult to translate because they use quite consistent grammar. Your fabrications do not, which makes it impossible to make any sense out of them. If a fabricated text does not make any sense you should not blame the lack of grammar but your own premises.The vertical Trigramlines are just as difficult to translate as the linetexts of the Guicang and the Zhouyi.
In other words, you know your fabrications don't make sense. If your fabrications are untranslatable, then don't look at the 'lack of a verb', but question your own assumptions.I have prefered to use exactly five english words, when showing the very structure of of the five character lines, and my translation is ofcourse almost unreadable. The main problem of one of the lines translated is t.ex. not the last not, but the lack of a verb?
And which fang would that be and why should the two be related? Source, please.fang meaning 'the way' relates to fang meaning 'two boats in a line'.
You don't explain why the Image text of H32 should be related to chapter 1 of the DDJ. Should chapter 43 be related to H32 because it speaks of 益? Your reading of the chapter 1 is grammatically impossible. Ke 可 should be used by a subject.The Dao of the two boats is water; that which makes them able to sail.
Lao Dan uses the parable of an independent clause to show the same:
The Dao of the two words is a blank space; that which makes them speakable.
The comma's of first line of Dao De Jing is thus:
dao, ke dao fei heng, dao
(, ke dao fei heng,) is symbolizing the blank space (_) between dao_dao
Reading this way is only possible, if the character is 'heng' and not 'chang'
because the imagetext of hexagram 32 'heng' says:
'to stand on his own feet' meaning 'independent'.
Say, speakable unindependent, Dao.Your reading of the chapter 1 is grammatically impossible.
The difference between you and me is,Nothing you have said so far can be confirmed, not by objective research, not by tracing the steps you took to arrive at your mirages.
That's a lame excuse, and it perfectly shows the value of what you are saying, or better, the lack of it. You are not willing to discuss anything, you are dodging all questions and it seems you want us to accept your writings at face-value. I wonder who on this forum is willing to do that. Not many, I guess.My readings can't be confirmed, because I'm a diviner.
Ofcourse not.it seems you want us to accept your writings at face-value
I'm not a daoist and I do not want to make a judgement, whether the Received or the Mawangdui version of Chapter 1 line 7 is the original line? That's why I stick to this 6 characters compromize:You also don't explain why you favour a Mawangdui version of the Daodejing over the received version.
The imagetexts of the hexagrams 7, 18, 41, 48, 49, 50 can be almost original,Linking the Image text to the Lianshan (or better: the misconceptions that you have of this text) is as fancy as saying that King Wen was an alien astronaut who wrote down the manual of his spaceship.
Chapter 59 http://www.daoisopen.com/B1toB3Chapters594820.htmlYou didn't break any code, you just made something up. Please give me the titles of 'the' dictionaries, and prove that your translation is grammatically correct by citing proper sources. You also don't explain why you favour a Mawangdui version of the Daodejing over the received version.
PO Box 6945,
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).