ChiDragon

Uroboros.... I am glad that you are reading ZZ as parables, not like others reading it as the TTC. It is because you are not reading it object by object nor line by line. That is the right approach to read ZZ......

MH... Can you clarify what do you by "other than its own".........???

Here is how I understand about fajin and always this way.... The former is completely true. However, the latter is not quite so. There is no special training for fajin need to be taught. After a long period of Tai Ji practice, the jin is automatic developed in the muscles and tendons without having one being realized. When the practitioner issue a force, this force is automatically issued as jin. Another words, after a long time practice of Tai Ji, any force exerted by the body is considered to be Jin. The latter was a myth. Thus Qi is not that miraculous as one's thought it was. PS.... Chneg Man Ching may not have taught fajin. However, I had read one of his books in Chinese. He had a great emphasis on fajin in his book.

After Zhuang Tze said about the Kun and Peng, then he said something about "little knowledge and big knowledge", "small year and big year". The mushroom doesn't know that there was a beginning or the end of the day. A cicada doesn't have any knowledge about the period in length of a year. It is because due to their short lifespan and the characteristic of limitation of things. Each living thing has its own characteristic and limitations. Therefore, there is a difference in their knowledge and intuition. ZZ was not really emphasized by the observation on the physical size of the living things, such in big or small nor long or shot. Actually, he was using the difference in images and the period of life experience as similes for an evaluational judgement. The characteristic of all things has more limitations than humans. Humans can move forward for advancement. However, at the time, people were only sufficed with their present moment. They didn't realize that they can pursuit another target at a higher level. Hence, he mentioned the gigantic Peng bird that no one has ever heard of to enlighten people that there are even more profound and higher target to be aimed for. Zhuang Tze was not really emphasizing that something small is more inferior than something big. In ZZ's thinking about "wander with complete freedom" with all things integrated as a whole, then how can he said there is a difference in big and small....???

Yes, I am in preparation all morning..........

"Immediacy" Broader vision open mind No more narrow views

Any time is a good time, unless one really wants to restrict oneself to the traditional way.

Yes, I do agree that we may make comparisons but must not mix one thought into another to distinguish the unqinueness of each philosophy.

ZZ is a philosopher, not a biologist, thus he couldn't careless how the birds live. He was using the various sizes of the birds to illustrate his philosophy about how to broaden one's wisdom by having a wider visible and look farther ahead. In the metaphor, he was implicating that one should not be so narrow minded as the dove by just staying in one small area and don't know what else is going on around the world. He was using the Peng bird to show a big contrast about its broad vision and wisdom as compared to the narrow minded dove.

No, that would be a principle again. I'll let you know as soon as I've come across it in the near future. Edited to add.... Ahhhh...here is one that I can give you. A reason was given for the mushroom and the cicada do not see those thing as shown in red is because the short lifespan of both. PS.... This are the kind of things that we should look for in Zhuang Tze's philosophy and leave Lao Tze's stuff out.

It is more being a reason than a principle.

The "Tao/tao" are different between Lao Tze and Zhuang Tze. Please notice there is a difference how Tao was spelled. There are a "Tao" and a "tao". The "Tao" was in Lao Tze's mind while "tao" was in Zhuang Tze's. Lao Tze's Tao, sometimes, is either visible(Yu) or invisible(Wu). Sometimes, Tao is "tao" which is a principle. Zhuang Tze's "tao" is a reason which explains why are things happening that way.

Wu/ Yu is not ZZ's concern anymore. At this point in time, Wu/ Yu was outdated.

Thank you for your kindness........... I hope you'll recover from your tantrum soon. You shouldn't get miffed over a conversation......

Please read carefully. Didn't I say the same thing to begin with....??? I was talking to Stosh about the kind of birds referring to the dove and quail as in comparison with Peng.

No, sorry you took it that way. FYI There are lots of Chinese are not familiar with classic and could have the worse interpretation that no one has ever heard of.

Well, If I can make you better, I will revise my statement to read: Yes, most Chinamen knew that. Unless they are not on the "most" list......

Yes, as a general rule, it is advisable not to add or subtract anything to the original idea to confuse the issue under discussion.

Yes, you are. You will be appreciated if you try to stay within the philosophical scope of the thread. It would be less confusion to the issue by keeping any idea about TCM or martial arts practice out.

Only if you would like to make it an illusion. I know that I am a Chinaman and you are not.......

Yes, all Chinamen knew that. Unless they are not Chinamen......

Ming Ling and Ta Khun are the legendary names given to the trees by ZZ. The dove was assumed lazy was only ZZ's illustration in comparison to the Peng bird. The peng bird wants to travel a long distance but the dove didn't. It was because it has to go through all the hassle of carrying the extra luggage for long distance travel, so to speak. Again, ZZ is not a TCM person, thus he was not concern about the medical property of the trees. Please don't be so concern with the properties of the birds that ZZ uses but read into the thoughts of the parables. The only thing you should be concerned is the size of the bird. ZZ was using the size of the birds to distinguish the difference between big and small. What kind of birds he was used for example is immaterial.

里（Li） is a Chinese unit for distance; a Chinese mile. Just think of it as a unit, the numbers are not that significant. 力（Ｌi) is human body strength. Please don't get them confused with the phonetics.

Wheres Ku supposed to be? Ku should be Chu, 楚, which is short for the State of Chu. Chu is a name was given to a state under the feudalism. Is Ta kung supposed to be a tree as well? Yes, 大椿 is a tree. In modern pingyin(phonetic) is Da Zhuang instead of Ta Khun. If one goes 100 li why couldnt you carry provisions that far. It can be done. I think the turtle dove was just complaining that it has to carry something so far away to indicate its laziness. In that time was the sappan-wood tree known for its antibacterial properties? Was the elm known for its demulcent properties? The trees were mentioned just as objects in the parables, I don't think ZZ was concerned about the properties of those trees at the time. Is Urob on target about the wind being chi ? I don't understand the question. What is "Urob on target".....??? Okay, now I understand. Yes, Urob is on target. The wind is 氣（chi）, it doesn't mean "energy" here. It means the moving air(氣:Chi),

I've never said anything like that........... Don't believe everything you read. Yes, question everything.