dawei

And I thought you understood english... We were not talking about differences... I simply pointed out that in writing [good] english stories, you don't repeat the same word over and over; in context it is known the previous descriptions carry over. That chinese needs to remind there reader over and over and over that it is a 'spirit-man' at every mention of the person is simply bad english, in english. That's it... Storytelling is an art, and CD should take a class(es) in writing engilsh as I think that would actually help his desire to translate as faithfully as possible.

Don't treat each word as a dictionary definition... If someone says a red, three wheeled bicycle... and then says "That bike" later... That bike IS STILL RED and IS STILL THREE WHEELED. You don't change the bike just because you do not repeat every attribute about the bike. You'll have to get use to english and how it builds upon previous meaning. In this way, the language is flexible.

There is no misleading or mistaking the meaning... so there is no need to rephrase in english. English does not seek to repeat the same words too much if you can convey the meaning. Here is the conveying going on: 1. a Spirit-like man 2. flesh and skin were (smooth) as ice and (white) as snow 3. did not eat any of the five grains, but inhaled the wind and drank the dew; that he mounted on the clouds, drove along the flying dragons 4. by the concentration of his spirit-like powers he could save men from disease and pestilence 5. That man, with those attributes, 6. Nothing could hurt that man; Anybody who can read english knows this construction and know who "that man" is... Spirit-like was used twice; to say it one more time would simply be bad english repetition. This makes perfect sense in meaning. There is no need to translate word for word like this is a dictionary passage.

Yes, I have seen that title too and think it may read and convey the idea quite well.

The reason that some, like myself, don't like 'virtue' as a translation is that it then becomes anthropomorphic (human characteristic or attribute) when De is on the same level as Dao in origin. De is the power/capacity/efficaciousness of Dao; Dao is the blueprint; De is the construction at work. The ten thousand arise according to Dao Will through De.... JMO

Along the line of Steve's and using other "a" words, I like: Accept and Allow. It breaks down boundaries or limitations which seek to define an "I" (nod/bow to Rene).

Classically speaking... 'virtue' should come first as that was the 'way' it was first grouped; De chapters before Dao chapters. But the closest to you idea that I have seen is by Richard John Lynn with the title, "The Classic of the Way and VIrtue" , but I might prefer "The Classic of the Way and its Efficacy". The oldest references to the texts make no titling attempt; they simply refer to Laozi, or "The Laozi" if we suppose any titling was inferred... but other references include "Laozi in ancient script" which may be a nod to the [heathen] Chu script it was written in. Which has some dissimilarity to the northern writing before characters were more standardized. Arguably the earlier comments made on the Laozi was by the legalist Hanfeizi who wrote in two parts but as "Explaining Laozi" and "illustrating Laozi". Eventually there was a 'part 1' and 'part 2' mentioned and even a 'De Jing' (De Classic) and 'Dao Jing' (Dao Classic). But by the time of the historian SIma Qian he said Laozi talked about 'DaoDe' and it has forever stayed in that order we know today.

I think this is stated very well. When we have lingering doubts, it may be good but the inner sense and voice should be clear in terms of destiny/nature. We all have our limitations and if one knows these then they know what they can share and not share with others.

I don't think it was so much that he couldn't find someone to assume his time/space but he had not yet realized his own time/space but was tied to 'worldly affairs' as ZZ later quotes someone as saying misses the mark. The more we go through these sections, I like what Rene constructed as the 'actors'... Liezi was not the final step as he was limited himself.. he was not yet completely 'free' to forget.

I hear you.. but it sounds like you simply like to exchange words/semantics to make something more comfortable or acceptable... that's not wu wei nor ziran nor dao. That is man exerting his idea of self-will instead of realizing what it is. The Dao/Way offers a blueprint for existence. You are not able to stray outside of the blueprint.

Do you believe in a 'destiny of dao' ? Or are you outside of its forces...

It naturally fits. It is ZZ version of wu-wei... ZZ already played the card with the story of Yao when Yu essentially says "Forget it"... If one knows the history and the coming chapters... then one will understand why almost all writers on Zhuangzi also see it at this point: -- Yao brought order to the people of the world and directed the government of all within the seas. But he went to see the Four Masters of the far away Gushe Mountain, [and when he got home] north of the Fen River, he was dazed and had forgotten his kingdom there. - Burton This is what Zhuangzi calls smoothing out on the whetstone of heaven: “Forget the years, forget duty, be shaken into motion by the limitless, and so things find their lodging-places in the limitless. What is meant by ‘Smooth them out on the whetstone of Heaven’? Treat as ‘it’ even what is not, treat as ‘so’ even what is not.” - Graham “’I make progress.’ ’Where?’ ’I just sit and forget.’ ... ‘What do you mean, just sit and forget?’ ‘I let organs and members drop away, dismiss eyesight and hearing, part from the body and expel knowledge, and go along with the universal thoroughfare. This is what I mean by “just sit and forget”.’ ‘If you go along with it, you have no preferences; if you let yourself transform, you have no norms. - Graham ’I shall no longer exist’ to something like ’In losing selfhood I shall remain what at bottom I have always been, identical with all the endlessly transforming phenomena of the universe.’ - Graham In Zhuangzi’s opinion, the world was in continuous transformation, so all demarcation between one state/form and another, or solid distinctions between self and other, were false. - Haiming

Sorry... there is transformation here... forget the mole and the bird; they are already there... It is Yao who transforms... that is the point of bring in Yao. He gets beyond the limits of "useful" and "useless".

True.... but that Kun cannot truly physically transform to Peng means we are not talking about perceptions of size and limitations alone. IMO, this metaphor wants to move us beyond our senses.

what precedes will? ergo... will is simply following...

IT is titled 'Free Wanderer' because of the freedom afforded from transforming beyond our limited perceptions; this limitation causes a dependency, if you will, on our limits. It is what [narrowly through our perceptions] defines us, or better what gives us our own idea of identity. To transform is to break the limit; to get beyond the perceptions; to get beyond the 'who I am now' as I perceive it now. Transformation is the realization of freedom; what we perceive we are is not what we are.

I am not sure if this was mentioned but Legge's opening translation is not common: IN THE questions put by Tang [1] to Ki we have similar statements: 'In the bare and barren north there is the dark and vat ocean, – the Pool of Heaven. In it there is a fish, several thousand li in breadth, while no one knows its length. Its name is the Kun. There is (also) a bird named the Peng; In most translations, Kun transforms to Peng and flies off... Derek Lin has some interesting comments: http://www.taoism.net/living/2000/200011.htm I think there are some interesting connections to LZ but as there are LZ naysayers who want to keep LZ out of ZZ, I'll stop here.

In a way, this is very much a ZZ idea... as LZ does develop the dualistic idea more so... but nice to see how you bring it all together very simply.

Uroboros... please be careful of self-interested definitions of Wu-wei and the excitement that some have to proclaim its meaning as harm... bring morality into this is so far off track. As the Philosophy Department at the University of Hong Kong has written: The "Inner Chapters" of The Zhuangzi mostly avoided the wu-wei slogan. It is far more frequent in theLaozi influenced "outer Chapters." And it is funny to note that there was some chastising to bring LZ into a discussion of ZZ... but that is what has happened in particular forcefulness now... Just beware of what you read; don't believe everything; question everything. Even this. I would say that ZZ is engaging us in a concept of Wu wei, he just doesn't need to use any description or word for it... It is one's own nature or natural following which occurs for Peng, Quail, Lieh, etc... No judgments needed. No harm comes into the equation. It happens as it happens for each in the realm in which they exist.

That is true but the flip side is also part of the message: Don't judge (glory self): and don't care if your judged (disgrace self). Lieh was 'boundless'... those that fret about the above idea are 'bound' by their boundaries...

I know we often both share a both/and perspective but my feeling might lean towards Master Lieh as the top echelon; Numinous is Spiritual attainment. But your idea of mixing (Lieh) does offer an understanding to flying (Peng) on the earth (Quail).

Well... that was the day of rest after all

I know what your saying. I don't necessarily see them at odds with each other; I think it is a matter of perspective and ZZ wants to simply not go there (duality) at times. I think he is challenging the prevailing perspective. And yes, I am looking forward to seeing something else too.

The "he" in my post was about ZZ... he seems to want to pull it together rather than leave it even down to two parts. thanks.

I actually do think it is useful to compare them as we so often talk about LZ that now being able to draw on where they are different seems useful at times. I would agree that LZ was more a realistic and spoke of a worldly Tao and he wanted to give concepts/Names or describe it; Name is Great; Way is this; Way is that. ZZ is more other-worldly, transcending even Tao, thus transcending concepts and names; He wants to show its action; Not name it [Way] as much as show how [the] Way works at every level of existence (but he transcend the concept of existence as he often questions this word--against non-existence and non-of non-existence; because it is cyclic instead of just dualistic). I think to simply say he gives reasons is still conceptual; Whereas LZ wants to say 'this' is the ten thousand and this is what it does (reasons); ZZ wants to present the actual ten thousand to us; show us birds of various sizes (Peng vs Dove) and HOW they actually live, think, exist. He wants us to get in their skin, and realize this is our skin. Instead of trying to emphasis we are but one of the ten thousand like the birds, he wants to make it a more 'collective' ten thousand; deconstruct it to what it is: One thing. He seems to put this forward in an eye opening statement like: "Heaven and earth were born at the same time I was, and the ten thousand things are one with me. " -- Tr. Burton