Comments for Bao Pu

Comment on De matches Heaven and Earth 德配天地 by baopu

baopu — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 18:51:13 +0000

In the Yijing (Wenyan commentary, 7th Wing), we also find:

夫大人者，與天地合其德，與日月合其明，與四時合其序，與鬼神合其吉凶。
“The superior person is in harmony:
In virtue, with Heaven and Earth;
In brightness, with the sun and moon;
In orderly procedure, with the four seasons;
In good fortune and bad fortune, with the gods and spirits”
Huang p. 37

– The De of the superior person is joined with that of Nature herself. Also mentioned in the Baopuzi and Wang Bi’s commentary to chapter 5 of the Daodejing: 聖人與天地合其德 and chapter 16: “he makes his virtue conform to that of Heaven and embodies the Dao so that it permeates him completely…” (與天合德，體道大通)

Comment on Guodian Laozi 甲:1: original or altered? by baopu

baopu — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 01:45:30 +0000

The simplified answer is that it is the oldest version, and perhaps closer to the original wording.

Comment on Guodian Laozi 甲:1: original or altered? by wes

wes — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 18:07:26 +0000

What is the simplified answer as to why the Guodian find is an important version?

Comment on Adults and Infants by baopu

baopu — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 02:18:16 +0000

His translation and notes are here:
http://home.pages.at/onkellotus/TTK/English_Lin_TTK.html#Kap55

Comment on Adults and Infants by CP

CP — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 01:10:35 +0000

Yep, that’s it. I don’t have Derek’s book in front of me, but I’m sure he makes use of the “ideal vs real” world distinction in there somewhere (perhaps not in that specific poem but around it somewhere?). In the context of that backdrop, I read this specific section as a cautionary tale against psychological demons of this sort and that caused by excessive pushing against the world (in terms of projecting onto the world the way it should be).

Does he say anything else in that particular annotation?

Comment on Adults and Infants by baopu

baopu — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 21:27:10 +0000

Greetings Chris,

I just read Derek Lin’s interpretation:

“Infants are protected from danger. Someone who has cultivated much virtue and thus become more child-like is likewise protected. Just as infants are protected by their loving parents, virtuous cultivators are protected by the all-nurturing mother, the Tao. By following the Tao, they cannot be stung by poisonous insects of malicious gossip, clawed by the wild beasts of fear and anger, or attacked by the vicious birds of greed and envy.”

Is this what you are referring to?

Comment on Guodian Laozi 甲:1: original or altered? by baopu

baopu — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 18:30:57 +0000

Hi jiaxiang,

When I have a moment, I’ll try to read Giles article. Alot has transpired in the past 125 years since he wrote that. In the meantime, you might be interested in reading a “biography” on Laozi I wrote a few years ago and published at the China History Forum:
http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php?showtopic=25025&st=0&p=4936661&#entry4936661

(You might have to scroll on the page to find it.)

Comment on Guodian Laozi 甲:1: original or altered? by jiaxiang

jiaxiang — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 13:23:59 +0000

A few references for you regarding H. Giles’ thoughts on the Daode Jing:

http://sunzi1.lib.hku.hk/hkjo/view/26/2601733.pdf

http://sunzi1.lib.hku.hk/hkjo/view/26/2601757.pdf

Argh! Sorry about that! I think I’ve mixed up the newly discovered cosmological text (太一生水) with the Daode Jing. (I’m still waiting for my Guodian Laozi monograph report, so I’ll shut up until I get that and absorb it.)

Do you think the Guodian discoveries would have changed his opinion? Why or why not?

Thanks!

Comment on Guodian Laozi 甲:1: original or altered? by baopu

baopu — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 14:23:54 +0000

hello jiaxiang,

There is no lost/new chapter. I’m not sure what you’re referring to.

I am not familiar with Giles’ theory about the Laozi being a forgery, but the Mawangdui and Guodian finds prove him wrong. Unless Giles meant that the Laozi we have today was not written by Lao Dan of the 6th century BCE. Most scholars in the West still do not place much credence in that story. Even Sima Qian didn’t know if it was true.

Comment on Guodian Laozi 甲:1: original or altered? by jiaxiang

jiaxiang — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 14:01:32 +0000

While I’m still waiting for my copy of the Guodian Laozi monograph report, there was mention of the “lost” chapter. I think the fact that a completely new chapter was “discovered” makes the entire document suspect. How could an entire chapter of a text be lost and then not lead someone to question if the “new” chapter was genuine and then, subsequently, whether or not the entire find is a fraud??

(Giles wrote at length with evidences that the Dao De Jing / Laozi text itself was a forgery.)

What are your thoughts on whether or not the Dao De Jing itself is a forgery?