dust

Mixed feelings about what you (Darkstar) have quoted from Moeller. On one hand, 得意 deyi did and does have these 2 meanings, and I feel silly for not having seen it myself. On another hand, though I missed it, seeing this deeper layer of meaning makes me quite happy... I would not go so far as to claim that this deeper level is the only level Zhuangzi really intended, though. I think it works well on both levels, and that ZZ probably meant it on both. Let's say I accept that there's no way we'd ever come across the characters 忘言 together unless they were written by a Daoist. Let's say the phrase is unique to ZZ and LDB. So what? If Zhuangzi put these characters together intentionally as a special phrase with a special meaning, as we know only this one single instance of the phrase from that period in time we must still only judge the meaning based on the meaning we get from it in the context of the Zhuangzi... not based on the writing of a man who lived 1000 years after him. If you can find other instances of the phrase sometime (but not too long, not 1000 years) after ZZ, I'd be curious to know. I meant not that we shouldn't ever use words, not that words should not be used by "regular people" I meant that those who grasp the essence of things, those who understand each other well without the problem of inefficient language getting in the way, use words as a simple tool and have little need for discussing the words themselves. By dissecting and analysing Zhuangzi's language, we show a failure to immediately grasp the meaning -- we forget the fish and study the net. Which is ironic because there is one level of meaning to this paragraph which condemns linguistic analysis, which suggests that we should forget the net and study the fish!

I've read through much of the article. I like how it starts, and he makes some good points about the past tying us down. I certainly agree that a detachment from the past carries clarity and peace with it

Darkstar...wow. It's late, so I'm not even going to look at your last post for fear of getting stuck here all night trying to respond! (I also write slowly). I'll quickly respond to this, though: I've always been drawn to concepts too. Often, I feel, to the detriment of other, "realer", aspects of life...but as you say, suppression is no good (so restrained use of this forum has been useful for the past few months! yes, 1000+ posts is my version of restraint...) Yes. Great art all works in a similar way, I think. A truly gifted poet, or painter, or filmmaker, etc, can (with beauty) represent ideas in a way that bridges the gap between the logical, linear, language-oriented mind and the Ineffable. Though it remains ultimately ineffable, I guess... Indeed. We've already fallen into a trap: using words to grasp the idea that words might not be good enough to grasp ideas. But we can try.

The words themselves, in English and Chinese, are common...so common that they might easily be placed together. I didn't say that they are commonly placed together. The fact that there's no other occurrence of them on ctext, nothing else suggesting that 忘言 is a common phrase particular to ancient Taoist cultivation, also suggests to me that it's a coincidence. Let's also not forget that Lü Dongbin was writing around 1000 years after Zhuangzi. I'm not sure why you're so keen to connect the 2 when there's no obvious connection aside from 2 common characters! By the way... do you see the supreme irony in this conversation?!

The words 忘 and 言 are so common and easily placed together that it would be (imo) a leap to say that he's definitely using special cultivation nomenclature. Indeed there is _________________________________________ I'll offer an ugly but descriptive translation: 荃者所以在魚，得魚而忘荃 A fish net is for catching/capturing/holding fish; get the fish, forget the net 蹄者所以在兔，得兔而忘蹄 A rabbit net is for catching/capturing/holding rabbits; get the rabbit, forget the net 言者所以在意，得意而忘言 Language is for catching/capturing/holding ideas; get the idea, forget the language 吾安得忘言之人而與之言哉？ How/where can I get a person who can forget language to share some language with?

I.... I said what my interpretation is...just below that line... Thanks for that, a very interesting post. I did read Republic (well, bits of it) in school, but you are quite right that I did not learn about the One! I find it quite extraordinary that this is the first time I'm hearing of it, actually..

sillybear, a few things.. 1. Yes, people have interpreted the text in many ways. My interpretations of certain chapters, as found in the OP, while by no means claimed to be "correct", are more honest than many, I would say. 2. In my opinion, it is better not to unconditionally presume that Laozi was a single man with particular background. This can only lead to presumptions about his intent based not just on what he wrote but also on what and why you think he should have been writing. I wish only to look at the text, not attempting to force unity among chapters that might well have been written by a number of different people. 3. When discussing a text, every chapter must be taken into account. I won't cherry-pick the chapters that fit with my preferred view. If you go back to the OP, you'll see a bunch of stuff that is about altering things, that isn't just about going with the flow and leaving the people to do their thing -- and if you disagree, if you think that I have misinterpreted all these particular chapters, please let me know! 4. The very concept of a hidden ruler, pulling strings and not saying things, negates the concept of a free people, in my opinion.

Hmm...almost. We haven't gone forwards much, anyway! Leaders are as corrupt and maniacal as they always have been; the populace is as stupid and easily manipulated as it always has been. Sure, people need to blame bad things on anyone but themselves. Which is one of the reasons they need a leader. But Laozi's ruler is behind the scenes, making everyone think they're doing it themselves. So the people cannot then blame the government, can they? And let's not pretend that there's such a thing as a perfect ruler who can prevent anything bad from happening! Things will go wrong at some point, whoever is in charge.

Yes yes. These are the important points. I actually think it only works if the disease is not given a name. I think that if we take the story at face value like this, it poses an interesting question, and we can see why Huazi might prefer to go back to a state of forgetfulness or oblivion; but if we look at any specific condition of memory loss or wasting, and we try to tie the story into real life, we'll see that it's not so simple. Yeah, I think I prefer this one. Thanks for that. I'll take a look at the other link later..

I wonder.... are we sure it's dementia he's talking about? Huazi is described as middle-aged and, as we've noted, there's no mention of the negative symptoms that accompany dementia (incontinence etc)... maybe it was amnesia, short-term memory loss? That would also explain why he was able to be cured... Not sure where the translation is from originally. I don't know much about the Liezi at all. I do know that whoever did the translation took a few liberties with it!

Anyone who's spent time around more than 1 dog, or cat, or rat, or parrot, or any other animal, should be very clear that they have different personalities.. my experience with dogs and cats reveals extraordinary differences in behaviour.. Shows just how special we think we are that someone feels the need to ask the question...

Hi I'm sure you are aware of these things, more so than I am, which is why your appreciation of this story bemused me slightly. 闔室毒之 I think "All his family were perfectly disgusted with him" is a pretty awful translation. I would suggest, "It was like a poison/illness/hardship for his entire family." Not simply suggesting that they were annoyed/disgusted by him..! This, to me, makes it a little better. Anyway, even considering this, this is the only real mention of any negative emotion during his forgetful period. It doesn't say that he was particularly upset by any of it, does it? Yes....exactly. "Oh! if I could but recapture a short moment of that blessed oblivion!" He's saying that he wants to be "at peace" again, free from the chaos of his thoughts. Isn't that suggesting that to be forgetful, senseless, and emotionless is a preferable state of being? Preferable to being a "fully functioning" human? In my opinion, whether or not he intended to forget all his pain and happiness is irrelevant; the relevant point is the suggestion that a life entirely free of emotion is good. A life free of family, free of growth, free of awareness -- this is what the man wants to recapture, no? Tempering turmoil is the goal of many of us, for sure. But I don't think that dementia, or some kind of temporary amnesia, is a particularly good example of this. And (maybe it's just me, but) I would rather deal with all of the ups and downs of life than live in a foggy state of senselessness. Well what I'm about to say is not entirely relevant because the "moral" of the story remains basically the same, but I don't think this is actually what is written in the Chinese. Original Chinese: 子貢聞而怪之，以告孔子。孔子曰：「此非汝所及乎！」顧謂顏回記之 Modern translation: 子貢聽說後感到奇怪，把這事告訴了孔子。孔子說：“這不是你所能懂得的啊！”回頭叫顏回把此事記錄下來 English translation: Zigong heard this, and found it odd, and went to tell Confucius. Confucius said, "This is beyond your understanding!" Yanhui was called to write it all down. Well, I am not trying to tell you that your own feeling is wrong. Simply that I do not share your feeling. I want to be lucid to the end.

Aside from the fact that dementia doesn't prevent someone from feeling emotions, and can in some cases even lead to greater anger, frustration, and other extremes, it is also incredibly difficult on family members, is it not? And if our goal in life is numbness and oblivion, why don't we all just overdose on heroin and be done with it?

Let me put it another way. If Laozi and Zhuangzi were alive now, what would they think about modern methods of rule / governance? dictatorships, democracies, oligarchies, hunter-gatherer societies...? The sage is self-effacing and scanty of words. When his task is accomplished and things have been completed, All the people say, "We ourselves have achieved it!" OK...but why not actually let the people themselves achieve it? (!)

I'm going to suggest that much of this discussion has actually moved considerably away from the intent of the OP. My motive was originally, (I think!?), to examine both: -- popular ideas of TTC-based Taoism and -- less-mentioned but still popular themes within the Laozi itself and see how they fit with each other. The TTC/Laozi is popularly (i.e. by a majority of the population) thought of as representative of Taoism, yes? It is by far the most frequently-translated text, and the focus of a large percentage of discussions of Taoism, both in Taoist and non-Taoist circles. So my question is, does the popular idea of Taoism actually fit in with what is said in the TTC? The Vinegar Tasters is a popular Taoist meme; in this conversation, it gives us a simple way of coming to a common understanding of what the popular perception of Laozi is; as I said in the OP, a wizened little man sitting under a tree, sipping vinegar and grinning merrily. Someone at harmony with life, adept at enjoying himself in any situation. If you disagree that this is the popular perception of Laozi, we need to clear that up, but... I don't for a second believe that the popular idea of Laozi is that of a manipulative government official, silently playing puppeteer as he advises kings to do things like: plan for the future by storing grain; kill enemies ruthlessly before they cause trouble; keep the population fat and stupid so they don't get out of hand... Oh, no, I just mentioned it because it's delicious. I'm sure the Vinegar Tasters depicts sour vinegar. I think the Vinegars Tasters pictures are attempting to convey that Laozi was a happy little old man who enjoyed what others didn't -- someone more in harmony with nature and with life than Buddha or Confucius. I don't know what the original painter meant by it, but this is the popular interpretation, right? OK, yeah... I don't disagree that manipulation might be an easier way of dealing with people much of the time, and I don't disagree that this is part of what is said in the TTC. But, is it the same as being at harmony with nature/life? And, with direct regard to the original argument, is it one of the first things people think of when they bring up the TTC?

What has being at peace with nature got to do with setting up situations to manipulate people? To be at peace, truly at peace, one must accept and adapt. Zhuangzi knew this. Yes, this is how I see it. In my opinion though, if one is presuming Laozi to be one man with one opinion, a reality of multiple authors only increases the likelihood that certain chapters are misinterpreted. Ah. Well, yes and no. Things are translated as mystical when people don't fully grasp context or content. Many translators have been lax in their historical and etymological research, in my opinion... It's possible. One can make an allegory out of anything... Yes, as I understand it the story is intended to show that Laozi's philosophy, as opposed to those of Buddha and Confucius, is one of acceptance, harmony, finding joy in the sour bits of life as well as the sweet...etc.. The question is, is the Laozi philosophy actually 100% happy-go-lucky, find-the-joy-in-everything, live in harmony with nature, or are there major elements in he text that in fact contradict this idea? Chapters where he talks of the benefit of the state having a professional executioner, for example, or where he suggests that a ruler fill his subjects with rice until they can barely move so that the kingdom will be easier to rule. Aside: Shanxi vinegar is hardly sour at all. Really delicious.

Yes. That video pissed me off. Taomeow, you're an intelligent person. That was an incredibly unintelligent thing to post.

From http://thedaobums.com/topic/37854-why-we-should-eat-puppies-a-controlled-forum-topic-experiment/ I'd just like to point out that, though I am most certainly an argumentative bastard, my only intention by arguing in that particular thread was to play a role. I normally do not intrude on someone's PPD unless I find a topic interesting and agreeable. The thing is, if you were to put this "doable anarchy" idea into practice, every so often there most definitely would be someone jumping in, arguing their socks off, and putting the page count up to 6 in a matter of days, leaving you with a bunch of posts to delete. Nobody was doing this, and it didn't seem very realistic. It was an experiment after all, no? I do hope that wasn't lost on people..

Indeed I'm not sure that this is entirely fair. A traditional "Western approach" can be thorough in finding faults, but so can the traditional Eastern; Zhuangzi spent a lot of energy punching holes in people's reasoning! And anyone might swallow anything without thinking... Christians do it, Muslims do it, and people growing up in China under traditional Confucian and pseudo-Taoist values do it! No, no, nothing like that. I place very little faith in the masses! Yes, I suppose they did. Yes. As I mentioned in my last post to MH, though, my line of questioning isn't all about my personal differences with the Laozi. As many faults as I see in it, I still love it, and always will. I am, I suppose, guilty of trying to punch holes in the reasoning to see if it holds up as a general manual.

Yes, the more I think (or don't think) the less acceptance I find for the status quo. There are so many things that people just aren't allowed to do. It's better now than it was for many centuries, of course, but that doesn't make it any less galling. It's happening in the UK too, and it's.... bullshit. When I was growing up, the IRA was the big threat here. Before that... Russia? Before that, Germany. The list goes on, all the way back to the beginning of mankind. Governments need threats so that the people need security. Well, this is a different topic, really, isn't it... security vs freedom. As far as LZ goes, I believe that he was trying to allow for both Perhaps he was, but.. government employee or not, if my statement is even a little bit true, at the very least Laozi and Zhuangzi must be in some disagreement, no? So... which is the "more Taoist" way of doing things? No 2 people will ever agree 100% on everything forever, I know that.. we must be selective in every walk of life. Anyway, my line of questioning isn't all about my personal differences with the Laozi. As many faults as I see in it, I still love it, and always will. In this thread, I'm trying to figure this all out from a more objective, "academic" standpoint. In a way, I suppose, I want to see if it makes sense when "Western rationale" is applied to it. Allow? Do most of us have a choice?

Would this mean that those who identify with "we" are content with being ruled, and those who identify with "I" are not happy unless they are ruling? And if so, what about someone who just wants to be left alone? Not all kings, I think, but you make a good point. We are bound by our own limitations just as a king is bound by his powers... but some kings, some emperors, made the rules as they went along. Isn't Laozi doing just that? Creating his own rules? non-interference / wu wei / 无为 vs force, interference, outside influence, control self-so / ziran/tzujan / 自然 vs directed intent, planning, analysis Very simply: if he believes that we don't need to do anything ( 以亡事取天下 ) why does he also say things like: 為之於丌亡又也 Act when something doesn’t exist yet, 紿之於丌未亂 Govern it before it turns to disorder --- not acting, not governing, though it would perhaps result in more disorder, would be the most wu wei way, no?

Well, isn't every reasonable POV at least a little conflicted? It's a manual for a king; but we're commoners. How can I pretend to be a king when, according to the laws of any given nation, I am not free to do as I please, even when it harms nobody else? Either way, there are conflicting ideas between chapters. Is it practice non-interference, or rule quietly (running interference)? Is it be self-so and let others be self-so, or govern things with intent?

In all honesty, I don't, any longer. I have picked and chosen, and I now no longer treat the text as any kind of personal instruction manual. At this point, I believe that it contains both wisdom and folly. But I have only come to believe this after some amount research and contemplation. When I was younger, reading the text from a certain perspective, I felt like such an ancient and difficult text must contain many gems of wisdom, and for some time I did base some of my ideals and behaviours on what I thought LZ was saying. (The "why" to that is not important any more.) More importantly, I know that many others aside from myself do base their behaviour around the LZ. So I find it, at the very least, interesting (and possibly even important) to think about whether or not his ideas are reconcilable with human nature, and with other Taoist ideas.

inherent nature ~= need !! imo But... I would be happy to discuss whether or not this is truly a need...!

Both! I see. Yes.. Where a chapter, such as GD 16 (WB 67), quite specifically talks of war, weapons, etc: 1. This is always going to involve ethics of some sort -- and the ethics of governing a nation could then often be applied to the self 2. Do we then believe that every single chapter is also interpretable as relevant to energy cultivation? Both at the same time? And do we think that Laozi had intent for such interpretations, or that his philosophy is just so broad and clever that any chapter is universally applicable, in any situation? Enforcing... implementing... directives... I must say, I don't like these words much! But isn't that circular? There's support for information in a book because there's support for it elsewhere in the same book? If we're talking about modern ideas, ideas of freedom and creativity that I think many modern Taoists would like to see applied, surely freedom of will, of action and expression, is important? Doesn't ruling one's own life conflict with being ruled? I see Laozi as being quite happy to limit most freedoms if they conflict with his ideals of a stupid, quiet, essentially submissive people. What I mean is, how can I reconcile my need to be free to move and explore and learn and grow (things that life does, things that it is in our nature to do!!) with the manipulative ideas presented in some chapters? If it's convenient, could you point to where he acknowledged this? I'm still not completely familiar with the whole text I agree, to an extent, that democracy is very flawed, and the idea of a benevolent dictator was something I enjoyed for many years. But whilst democracy can be easily manipulated by a minority, it only takes one benevolent dictator turning to the Dark Side to plunge an entire nation, or the entire world, into turmoil... Why not just leave people to it, like Dao does?