For information of what this thread is about, see the parent thread
The Dao that can be described in language is not the constant Dao; the name that can be given is not its constant name
The Dao that can be rendered in language and the name [ming] that can be given it point to a thing/matter [shi] or reproduct a form [xing], neither of which is it in its constancy [chang]. This is why it can neither be rendered in language nor given a name
Right away, this establishes the processal nature of Daoism. It is, quite possibly, the earliest case of a warning against the fallacy of misplaced concreteness. Wang Bi, venerable though he might be, missed the boat on that one and plowed right into that very fallacy by postulating a constant aspect of the Dao. However, he was not entirely wrong in this. Simply because something is in a constant state of flux does not mean that it lacks a pattern or principle [li*]. Simply because it is ever-changing, that does not mean that it is ever-new.
Nameless, it is the origin of the myriad things; named, it is the mother of the myriad things.
Anything that exists originates in nothingness [wu], thus, before it has forms and when it is still nameless, it serves as the origin of the myriad things, and, once it has forms and is named, it grows them, rears them, ensures them their proper shapes, and matures them as their mother. In other words, the Dao, by being itself formless and nameless, originates and brings the myriad things to completion. They are originated and compleded in this way, yet do not know how it happens. This is the mystery [xuan] beyond mystery.
I actually more-or-less agree with Wang Bi here, though I will add my own New Confucian bias to the mix. I think that before being named, the Dao exists as a context/principle [li*] which allows for the rise of concepts/things [qi]. I admit that this rendering relies heavily on the veracity of yin/yang theory whereby each aspect can be further divided into yin and yang in an infinite regress. But I think that such a system elegantly describes the Dao, whereby it is both concrete (qi) and fluid (li*), allowing for both the actuality of a concept and the inexactness of context. This is why ‘Dao’ is routinely called ‘ineffable’ because it seemingly manages to play two roles, not in a context dependent manner, but at once. To that, I would mention Wang Fuzhi, whose cosmology demands not only that a sharp distinction exist between the collection of data and the integration of that data into a system, but also recognizes that through the act of integration there is also an act of interpretation and that the human individual serves as the locus around which that interpretation centers itself.
Given that, the ‘mystery’ is only such when one limits their thinking to mere yin or mere yang as opposed to yin/yang and that the ‘mystery beyond mystery’ is only such when one tries to view yin and yang devoid of a larger context.
Therefore, always be without desire so as to see their subtlety.
Subtlety [miao] is the absolute degree of minuteness. As the myriad things reach completion only after originating in minuteness, so they are born only after originating in nothingness. Thus, always be without desire and remain empty, so that you can see the subtlety with which things originate
“Thus let there always be nothingness, so we may see their subtleties; let there always be existence, so we may see their ends.” That is the traditional punctuation to that line of text since the Song dynasty (960-1279 CE). Personally, I think that the punctuation more-or-less sums up the point trying to be made with this passage and the (counter-intuitive) next passage. We have to recognize our own perspective (a la Wang Fuzhi) as well as the dual role played by the Dao(s).
And always have desire so as to see their ends.
End [Jiao – usually ‘frontier’ or ‘boarder’] here means that the ends to which things revert. If anything that exists is to be of benefit [li], it must function out of nothing. Only when desire is rooted in such a way that is is in accord with the Dao will it prove beneficial [ji]. Thus always have such desire so that you can see those ends to which things finally arrive.
See above. Needless to say, I disagree slightly with the term ‘revert’, since the process isn’t about reclamation but rather about transformation. At best, you can achieve a transformation back to something similar, but last I checked, you can’t step into a river twice.
These two emerge together but have different names. Together, we refer to them as mystery: the mystery upon mystery and gateway to all subtleties.
The “two” are origin and mother. “Emerge together” means that they emerge together from mystery. They “have different names” because what these apply cannot be the same. At the start, it [mystery] is referred to as “origin” and, at the end, it is referred to as “mother”. Mystery is the dark, where in silence absolutely nothing exists. It is where origin and mother come from. We cannot treat it as something to be named. This the text cannot say, “Together, they have the same name: mystery” but instead says, “Together, we refer to them as mystery.” The reason it refers to them in this way is that there is no other way that it may be treated. Because it has to refer to them in this way, it could not just stop and restrict their meaning to the single word “mystery.” If it had restricted their meaning to the single word “mystery,” this name certainly would have been far off the mark. Thus the text says, “mystery upon mystery.” All subtleties emerge from mystery. Thus the text says that is is “gateway of all subtleties”.
No surprises in my quibbles here, I see the ‘two’ not as ‘origin’ and ‘mother’ but as ‘thing’ and ‘principle’. However, I don’t see those ideas as being contradictory. As I have stated in numerous other threads, intelligence has its roots in physicality, and the same principle applies here. So, I will gloss ‘origin’ to ‘thing’ and ‘mother’ to ‘principle’. I think this correlation is fair, since our origins are invariably an act (acts are ‘things’ in the qi-system. Process philosophy, remember? Everything is a verb!), but our maturation (mother) is a matter of context whereby we can grow. Both of these represent “ways” ("dao"s) and it is the traveling of such a way (dao) that constitutes the Dao (Dao – I wish this ‘capital’ vs. ‘lower-case’ distinction existed in Chinese. Very subtle, very nice).
Speaking of ‘subtlety’, I have barely addressed this vital concept in this commentary. To give this concept any degree of due justice, I will have to provide a context for my understanding (is anybody noticing a pattern here? Sorry, that was a pun – the word I am using for ‘context’ (li*) is often translated as ‘principle’, but can also be rendered ‘pattern’ – but enough of philological geekery!) I would like to provide the Daxue, the first text that a Confucian was taught to learn since the Song period:
So, if we take the bolded portion to heart and apply it to the DDJ’s idea of what a beginning and an ending constitute, to remind you: “always be without desire so as to see their subtlety. And always have desire so as to see their ends.” We have to remember that the thing-itself precedes our understanding of it, but our perception of the thing is entirely contingent upon the biases that we are bringing to the table.
