samwardell

Have been away from this forum for a month or so; have missed it. I’m a teacher and the term started, my teaching hours have doubled this year; more significantly I am getting married which takes a whole further chunk of my time; all work and no play etc… I say this as I feel I owe an apology to those who continued to make thoughtful and big-hearted contributions to the thread I started and then abandoned in the Chuang-tzu sub-forum. I want to ask some advice for about education from a Taoist perspective. I have many and varied students; some are hard workers, some are bright, a few are both, more are neither. Some love my classes, others do not. The mantra of any teacher is that we praise effort above all else. Yet, of late, I am worried. Education has become about end results, at the end of the year my students take their A-levels, some anonymous person with a red pen takes their exam scripts and assigns a grade. If they are good my students get to go to the university of their choice, off to a new set of aims. I asked one of my classes (17 year olds) the other day (we are studying Aristotles’ Ethics) what they thought the goal of life was. All of them gave essentially the same response: that it was important to have personal goals and be fulfilled. I was mildly appalled at the paucity of language and ideas, it is sad that when coming to the end of their formal education their views should be so homogeneous and ill-expressed. Mostly though I was upset at the fact that not one of them had questioned the premise of the task, it was obvious to them that life was about goals. And why shouldn't they think so, I as their teacher – driving them haphazardly towards their A-levels, was complicit in this. At 17 these children saw life as goal-orientated; they see the grades not the subject as what is important. I have helped ruin these children. I am not alone in my guilt, the school as a whole mandates this view, as do their hopeful and proud parents. I know that most, if not all, my students will go on to lives of attainment, where words like ‘success’ and ‘failure’ will determine them. I hear staff and parents talk to kids as young as 15 about how hard it will be to find a job if they don't get their A* in maths. I have mothers of even younger children asking me how this or that will affect their future careers in medicine. I am asked to weigh up whether a degree in History of Art at a top university is more of less likely to lead to a job than Business studies at a lesser one. Some days my job includes telling children with real talents outside of the academic that they have to put them on hold to ensure they get their grades in their ‘proper’ subjects. I want instead to teach these children how to wander off beyond these stupid concerns. I want to teach them the value of emptiness. I want to tell them that they should not be rushing towards awards and grades, but learn to sit quietly. I have no idea how to even begin doing this; I’m even beginning to doubt that it is possible within the confines of the modern educational system. I feel lost. Any advice would be welcome.

Hi all, On the topic of whether tao should be translated as noun/verb ... there is no clear distinction in the ancient text, why should we assume that only one reading was meant? Or, as Rene points out, why should we assume that 'noun or verb' covers all the options, why not 'noun and verb'? Anyhow my interest isn't grammatical it's conceptual: does Chaung-tzu have a Laoist understanding (both noun and verb - and noun/verb!) of tao; or can we make more sense of his philosophy if instead he uses tao in the 'small' sense? Chidragon: I completely agree with you about the kind of 'free and easy wandering' ethic of the Chaung-tzu (which is exemplified in that lovely story of Chuang-tzu refusing a job); however I think this is more about the word yu. It seems to me that the word tao is used differently, and there are even passages where the two concepts are opposed to each other (see my last post). Marblehead; I agree that 'naturalness' is important, however what I cannot find is any direct linking of tao to 'naturalness' in the Chuang-tzu inner chapters. Instead it seems to me that when we do come across the idea of naturalness it is associated not with tao but with t'ian. ie In the butcher Ting story, "what is inherently so" gu jan is defined as "heaven's structuring" tian li. Lovely analysis I don't agree, but your position is very plausible. I would say that you are having to engage in a fair bit of 'footwork' - such as assuming the 'great tao' (thus allowing your analysis of "axis/pivot") when the word tao is never given that, or any similar, epithet in the text. Similarly, while I like your idea of "the great Tao" having no fixed path (is this your notion of wu tao?) we find in Lao-tzu the notion of 'following the tao' used in a pretty unambiguously positive sense [eg "man follows earth // earth follows heaven // heaven follows the tao"]... In essence what I am arguing is that tao in Chuang-tzu's inner chapters is used in two senses: The first (generally negative) is the 'way' of a philosopher. A philosophical tao determines how you divide up the world be designating things "it" shih and "other" pi and deeming things to be "that's it" shih and "that's not" fei. These determinations are classed as wei shih - inflexible philosophical standpoints. Chuang-tzu on the other hand suggests that we 'stand on the axis/pivot' of all these different taos and adopt any one at any time. This kind of determination is classed at yin shih - a flexible philosophical standpoint. The ability to respond flexibly yin shih is not associated with the word tao but rather wiht the word 'illumination' ming. This word does appear in the Lao-tzu (eg ch 33) but it is clearly not as important or as technically defined as it is in Chuang-tzu. The second use of tao (generally positive) is the pragmatic 'way' of the skilful craftsman, which is associated with heaven t'ian and the mysterious word shen. It is my view that the real message of the inner chapters is a rejection the analytic taos of philosophy (which ultimately divvies up the world into concepts - ie "is it a noun or a verb") and a celebration of the 'mystical' shen found in skilful activity (which, incidentally allows you to 'last out your years' in peace).

Apologies up front, this post has ballooned, sorry about the length… Tao in the Lao-tzu: First: tao can take titles; we have the ‘constant’ (ch’ang) tao in ch 1 and ch 37, the ‘great’ (ta) tao in ch 18 and ch 34, ‘heaven’s’ (T’ian chih) tao in ch 9 and ch 73 etc… Second: tao takes various descriptions; tao is like ‘water’ (shui) (ch 8), tao is ‘empty’ (ch’ung) (ch 4), tao ‘follows its own nature’ (fa tzu jan) (ch 25), tao ‘is without a name’ (ch’ang wu ming) (ch 37), tao ‘does not contend’ (pu cheng) (ch 73), tao ‘hides’ (yin), tao ‘engenders The One’ (shen i) (ch 42) [this is perhaps a surprising description as in other chapters tao seems to be synonymous with The One (i) see eg chs 14, 22, 39] etc… Third: the activity of the sage relates to the tao in particular we find linking words like: ‘sustains’ (ch 15), ‘practices’ (ch 41), ‘pursues’ (ch 48), ‘follows’ (ch 15) and ‘returns’ (ch 28) etc… Fourth: tao is explicitly linked to other key concepts, most noticeably te (eg ch 21), tzu jan (eg ch 25) and wu wei (eg ch. 48). Given all of the above it is inconceivable that we could interpret tao in the Lao-tzu as anything other than “The Way” (the important point here is the use of the definite article and the capitalisation as a proper noun, obviously the use of the word ‘way’ is itself highly arguable ) I am not going to try and explore the rabbit hole of exactly what “The Way” in Lao-tzu is (and given The Way is wu ming it would be a somewhat doomed endeavour anyhow); that tao is interpreted as “The Way” is enough for my purposes. Tao in the Analects of Confucius: From part 1: The Master said, "While a man's father is alive, look at the bent of his will; when his father is dead, look at his conduct. If for three years he does not alter from the way of his father, he may be called filial." From part 3: "In archery it is not going through the leather which is the principal thing - because people's strength is not equal. This was the old way." From part 4: "Riches and honours are what men desire. If it cannot be obtained in the proper way, they should not be held. Poverty and meanness are what men dislike. If it cannot be avoided in the proper way, they should not be avoided...” What is clear from Confucius’ use of tao in the Analects is two things. First is that it is an important concept; the word appears frequently. Second is that there are many different taos. For Confucius there are different ‘ways’ for different people. His own proposed tao is a practice of ritual and filial virtue harking back to the early Chou dynasty. However he is not proposing that this tao of the early Chou is “The Way” (as in Lao-tzu) but merely ‘a way’ which leads to a harmonious society – he designates this superiority to other ‘ways’ by calling it ‘the proper way’ (see above). If we use tao in this manner we can talk of ‘a father’s way’, ‘an archer’s way’, ‘a butcher’s way’, ‘a proper way’, ‘an improper way’, ‘my way’, ‘your way’, ‘a good way’, ‘a bad way’ etc... We are even free to pluralise it: ‘many ways’, ‘some ways’, ‘all ways’ etc… This, it should be obvious, is a very different use of tao compared to Lao-tzu’s “The Way”. Tao in Chuang-tzu (inner chapters): The following are translations from Graham 1981. He interprets tao in a Laoist manner. In the excerpts below I have ‘de-translated’ ‘The Way’ back to tao. “The sage does not work for any goal, does not lean towards benefit or shun harm, does not delight in seeking, does not fix a route by tao … and roams beyond the dust and grime.” Ch 2 In this passage interpreting tao as ‘The Way’ leads to a baffling result; that the ‘sage’ does not follow ‘The Way’. This would be strange for two reasons, first, because it is using ‘The Way’ in a negative sense; second because elsewhere in the text ‘sages’ are associated with tao. In fact in ch 6 the ‘woman Chü’ talks explicitly of the sage’s tao. On the other hand if we interpret tao closer to how Confucius does then the passage suddenly makes sense: “the say does not follow any way”; ie he is not beholdent to a particular way of doing things but is instead adaptable to changing circumstances. Here then tao - used negatively - is contrasted with yu (roam) - used positively. This interpretation has another advantage in making sense of the strange ‘axis of tao’ passage earlier in ch 2: What is It [shih] is also Other [pi], what is Other is also It. There they say ‘That’s it [shih], that’s not [fei] from one point of view, here we say ‘That’s it, that’s not’ from another point of view. Are there really It and Other? Or really no It and Other? Where neither It nor Other finds its opposite is called the axis of tao. When once the axis is found at the centre of the circle there is no limit to responding with either, on the one hand there is no limit to what is It, on the other hand there is no limit to what is not. Therefore I say: “the best means is illumination [ming]”. If we interpret tao as “The Way” two immediate issues arise. First is the peculiarity of the image – certainly none of the descriptions in the Lao-tzu would suggest “The Way” has parts or a mechanism. Second, why in a passage clearly about disputation of the philosophers (all that shih-ing, pi-ing and fei-ing) does the word tao appear at all? It seems to suddenly pop up and disappear again without explanation or adding much to the sense of the passage! If, on the other hand, we interpret tao as ‘the ways’ then the passage makes beautiful sense. The shih-ing pi-ing and fei-ing of the philosophers are their own personal ‘ways’ and the ‘illumination’ (ming) that Chuang-tzu recommends is to stand on the ‘axis’ allowing the temporary adoption of any particular ‘way’ in an adaptable manner (which it seems to me as good an interpretation of Chuang-tzu’s yin shih as you can get). In chapter 3 we get another strong hint that Chuang-tzu is using tao in a non-Laoist manner: Cook Ting was carving an ox for Lord Wen-hui … “Oh excellent!” Said Lord Wen-hui. “That skill should attain such heights!” “What your servant cares about is tao, I have left skill behind me….” Ch 3 If we interpret tao here as “The Way” we would expect a pretty mystical passage to follow dealing themes from Laoist philosophy, instead we find a fairly practical account of skilful butchery (seehttp://thetaobums.co...the-chuang-tzu/). Here, again, interpreting tao as ‘a way’ makes far more sense; the butcher is teaching his way – ie the ‘way of a skilful butcher’. HOWEVER… At the end of the butcher Ting passage Lord Wen-hui says “excellent from listening to butcher Ting I have learned how to nurture (yang) life”. Implying that the butcher’s way does teach us something universal. Similarly in Ch 6 we find this passage: “As for tao, it is something with identity, something to trust in, but does nothing, has not shape.” Just as the above passages make far more sense if we interpret tao as ‘a way’ this passage makes far more sense if we interpret tao as ‘The Way’. ----- It seems to me we should take Chuang-tzu’s own advice. Instead of having a fixed ‘that’s it’ (wei shih) with our interpretation of tao as "The Way" of Laoist philosophy, we should be more flexible (yin shih) willing to use the Confucian understanding of tao as 'a way'. If the context makes more sense with tao interpreted ‘a way’ then we should do so, if it makes more sense as ‘The Way’ that’s fine too. As Chuang-tzu says: ‘let both alternatives proceed’.

Wow, I was thinking yesterday that this thread may have run its course... nice to be wrong. Thanks all for your contributions. So rather than skirting around the issue any longer I will elaborate on what I think Chuang-tzu of the inner chapters means by tao. [incidentally, marblehead, I would agree that the standard divisions of the Chuang-tzu into three parts can get in the way of interpretation, however I am reasonably convinced that the inner chapters represent a discrete philosophical voice which, a few fragments in the outer chapters aside, is absent from the rest of the text.] This may take a while, will post when I’m done!

I would agree that it the Chuang-tzu has become an essential Taoist text, however this rests upon the process of synchronising the views of Lao-tzu and Chuang-tzu, a process which starts with the outer chapters of the Chuang-tzu and is complete by the time that the Lieh-tzu (which explicitly draws from both texts) was written (c.200AD). My problem is that this synchronisation, while undoubtedly of enormous cultural and spiritual value, leaves us with a skewed view of the inner chapters. This made my day! Also led me to spend a very pleasant evening re-reading the Lao-tzu… I suppose my contention is that the Lao-tzu and Chuang-tzu are not related as ‘apple and applesauce’ but as ‘apple and pear’ – seemingly similar but at bottom very different fruits...

Thanks! Have to say, of all the forums I have spent time on this, far and away, is the one I have felt most welcome on You all seem to be lovely people. Don't agree with this at all. There is some hedonist philosophy found, almost exclusively, in the chapters 28-31 ('Yeilding the throne', 'Robber Chih', 'Old fisherman') but it is a pretty minor voice in the text as a whole and, as far as I can see, completely absent from the inner chapters. I suppose at a stretch you might say that the first half of Ch 4 (the dialogues on dealing with those in power) have a hedonist flavour; but the ultimate advice given - the 'fasting of the hsin' and 'roaming freely inside the cage' is a long way from the philosophy of hedonism (compare to the great hedonist Yang Chu's maxim "If by plucking one hair, I was to benefit the whole world I would not do it.") However even if we accepted a hedonist strain in the Chuang-tzu's inner chapters it is not associated with his use of the word tao. In fact following the logic of Chapter 2 hedonism itself would sure be merely one of many taos and no more true to Chuang-tzu than the taos of Mo-tzu, Hui-tzu or Confucius. I think the largest block of evidence that the author(s) of the inner chapters was not a hedonist is the rejection of the hedonist principle of preservation of life found in the first half of chp 6. Here death is clearly approached in the manner of mere change (hua) and approach that explicitly involves the rejection of "selfishness". This rejection of selfishness and laissez-faire attitude to death is directly opposed to the philosophy of the Chinese hedonists. Similarly I am not convinced he was a libertarian. I would say the author of chapters 8-10 (a very distinctive voice, and definitely not the author of the inner chapters) does have an anarcho-libertarian attitude. However the inner chapters' seem grudgingly supportive of (or at least not strongly opposed to) state institutions (see 1st half of ch 4). Mostly though the inner chapters attitude towards politics seems to me to be one of extreme disinterest. A quote from ch 7 (Graham 1981 p 95): Heaven-based roamed on the south side of Mount Vast, and came to the bank of River Limpid. Happening to meet a man without a name he asked of him: "Permit me to inquire how one rules the empire." "Away! You're a bumpkin! What a dreary thing to talk about." I think marblehead's interpretation of my post, that I am saying Chaung-tzu is not a Laoist is probably a better way of putting it. My 'dramatic' topic title aside, really all I am proposing is that the interpretation of tao in the inner chapters as the same as / close to the Tao of Lao-tzu is misleading, and we can make far more sense of it if we adopt an interpretation closer to (though not necessarily identical with) Confucius' use of the term.

Very much my first impression of the Chuang-tzu as well. For a long time my only translation of the Chuang-tzu was a scrappy little version of the inner chapters by Cleary (which is not without its strengths but overly interpreted in the light of meditative practice). A few years and some better translations later my stance has completely changed. The differences between the Chaung-tzu and the Lao-tzu; on my reading, are profound. I will very briefly try and sketch some out. I apologise that my reading of the Lao-tzu is crude, it is a text I am still very unsure of and certainly it is far richer than the single paragraph treatment I'm about to give it. The two most important philosophical concepts in the Lao-tzu are Tao and Te - these concepts are very closely related. The Tao is a mysterious - inexpressible concept - the 'attainment' of (or 'return to') is the goal of the sage and the characteristic of Te. This is achieved through a philosophy of action called wu wei which is attached to a notion of 'naturalness' (tzu jan). This all operates within a cosmology of a natural world (tian) of fluid matter/energy (ch'i) driven by intertwined dual forces yin yang. It is also a pragmatic philosophy, primarily of leadership, accentuating the receptive and flexible properties of yin over the domineering and rigid properties of yang. While a 'skillful' translator can bend the text of the Chuang-tzu inner chapters to match up with this scheme it is in these translations that the Chuang-tzu is at its most confused and confusing. My opinion is that, in reality, there is a completely different focus. I would contend that, with the exception of the cosmological scheme and the idea of 'naturalness' (though the phrase tzu jan is not used), most of the above 'Laoist' philosophy is absent. Instead the Chuang-tzu is primarily writing against analytic philosophy [the Mohist, the Sophists, and the Confucians] and writing for tao-practice (as in the skilful practice of butcher Ting, not the Tao of Lao-tzu) exemplified in the notion of "wandering beyond". While the Lao-tzu makes the occasional disparaging remark about philosophers, the first and second chapters of the Chaung-tzu represent perhaps the single greatest work of 'anti-philosophy' ever written, not only is its critique devastating in content it is presented with humour and irony. In my experience it is without parallel in world literature (let alone the Lao-tzu). Perhaps some of this is a difference in taste. I came to Chinese philosophy from having studied analytic philosophy; in this sense Chuang-tzu is more personally valuable to me. I remember a piece of graffiti on the toilet wall at my uni "the difference between this place and a philosophy degree is here you come in full of shit." Chuang-tzu's the best laxative I know of! If you would like to re-read the Chaung-tzu I would recommend Watson's translation, the man was a brilliant sinologist and his translation is based upon a Laoist understanding of Taoism. My personal favorite is A C Graham's Chuang-tzu The Inner Chapters (actually over 3/4 of the book) however it is a very 'academic' work with all of the issues that entails.

Marblehead, thanks for the translation . Graham (1981 p 94f) comments on this passage: Gaptooth [Nie Que] and his friends live under the rule of the legendary Shun (whose family was Yu-yu), one of the ideal sages of the Confucians. But Shun preferred the morality which is from man to the spontaneity which is from heaven. Chuang-tzu would rather imagine a sage in the remotest past (the meaning of T'ai is 'ultimate') before there was even a dichotomy of Heaven and man, long before there were logicians distinguishing between 'X' and 'Y', 'ox' and 'horse'. I am personally fascinated by the heaven/man dichotomy touched on here, it is a regular theme appearing in: the opening of Ch 2 (pipes of heaven vs pipes of man), the short 'Commander of the Right' passage in Ch 3; the first dialogue of Ch 4 (Confucius and Yen Hui). It is most explicit in the opening of Ch 6. In general, as in this passage, Chuang-tzu seems to be taking the side of heaven. The sage is one who 'lets heaven act through them' and does not 'proceed with what belongs to man'. I like to think of this in terms of the outer chapter passage (ch 19) of the waterfall swimmer who just "goes with the flow" or butcher Ting of ch 3 who "goes by what is inherently so". I suppose a Buddhist might gloss this idea as 'mindfulness'. I also like the subversion of expectation in this passage; Nie Que's excitement that he managed to formulate several 'unanswerable' questions; and Yu-yi zi having to point out to Nie Que that the lack of an answer is far superior to any answer he could have been given. There's a nice passage in Ch 22 with a similar idea: Lightflash put a question to Nothing's-there: "Are you something, sir? Or isn't there anything there?" Getting no answer, Lightflash looked intently at his continence. It was an unfathomable blank: looking at it all day he did not see, listening to it all day he did not hear, groping at it all day he did not touch. "The utmost!" said Lightflash, "which of us can attain to this?..." (trans Graham 1981)

Interesting point; I would agree with you that there is material in the outer chapters which is invaluable to helping us interpret the inner ones. However the situation is complex. There are indeed some areas in which the outer chapters do seem to remain true to the inner ones; skill stories, the importance of 'wandering', the 'fasting of the hsin' etc... There are also some areas which are significantly added too; so the skill stories take on a more metaphysical colour in ch 19, the more spiritual aspects of Chuang-tzu's thought are fleshed out (we see new concepts being used which are absent in the inner chapters: eg 'ties' lei, man's 'nature' hsing, 'stillness' ching etc...). Also some of the concerns of the inner chapters disappear: uselessness, mutilation etc... In particular the mature anti-analytic philosophy of ch 2 almost completely vanishes. [Historically this may not be surprising; as the age of the hundred schools waned philosophical disputation became less common - the kind of analytic philosophy of Hui-tzu and the Mohist Canons completely ceases in Chinese thought not long after the time of Chuang-tzu; so his followers were understandably not that interested in this aspect of his thinking.] Most significantly for this discussion is we do see a change in the use of tao in the outer chapters; in particular we see explicit association of tao and te as related and equally important concepts and we also see that many of the authors of the outer chapters are familiar with the Lao-tzu. In much of the outer chapters tao cleary should be interpreted as Lao-tzu's Tao. So while I agree with you to some extent I think we should still be wary of leaning too heavily on the outer chapters to help interpret the inner ones.

I have a lot of sympathy for these sentiments; in fact while writing the OP I could hear Chuang Chou sitting on my shoulder cackling wildly as I desperately tried to categorize his work. Having said that, the question of how Chuang-tzu understood tao seems to me an important one; all I am proposing is that we should maybe be less keen to try and read the Taoist's Tao into his work, especially when doing so makes a nonsense of it. Despite this most translations seem to prefer to offer passages which are contradictory or incomprehensible (always under the ever so slightly racist assumption that Chinese philosophy "is not meant to always make sense"!) rather than abandon the hypothesis that Chuang-tzu uses tao in the manner of classical philosophical Taoism (primarily Lao-tzu, Shen Tao and Lieh-tzu). There is a lovely quote by the much missed A C Graham about the dangers of translating the Chuang-tzu: "It is in the best translations that Chuang-tzu suffers a strange mutation into a whimsical, garrulous wiseacre to whose ramblings you listen with half an ear in the confidence that every now and then he will startle you awake with a vivid phrase, a striking aphorism or a marvelous story. But this image of the great Taoist, at once affectionate and profoundly insulting, has no relation to Chuang-tzu or any other writer in the book, no relation to anything except the situation of a translator cracking under the multiple strains of his craft." (Graham 1981 p 31)

This thread has its genesis in another http://thetaobums.co...zu/#entry357667. What follows is academic and lacking in humour. You've been warned... When I first read the Chuang-tzu I came at it from a traditional standpoint; ie that Chuang-tzu is talking about a particular Tao - which was a mystery first 'talked of' in the Lao-tzu and later became the Tao of the Taoist. Certainly that seems undeniably to be the case in much of the text (chps 8-10 & 17 in particular). However I have begun to seriously doubt it is true for the inner chapters. These ideas are not novel to me but have been explored by Hansen (in Mair 1983) and Eno (in Kjellberg/Inanhoe 1996). [NOTE: From here on I will use “the Chuang-tzu” to refer only to the inner chapters and “Chuang-tzu” to refer to their author(s)] First off there are some simple textual facts about the Chuang-tzu that might make us at least suspicious of the traditional approach: i) The Lao-tzu is never quoted. ii) While Lao-Tan is a (minor) character in the Chuang-tzu he is not associated with a body of text or particular teaching, and in last story of Ch 3 Lao Tan is effectively criticised as his disciples fail to understand death properly (an issue which is of central importance for Chuang-tzu - see esp. ch 6). It seems far more likely that Chuang-tzu's source for Lao-Tan's existence is as a character from his mention in Confucian literature which Chuang-tzu was fond of referencing (see, eg, the story of Chieh Yu, the 'madman' of Ch'u – last section Ch 4 & Analects Ch 18.) iii) Setting aside the question of whether the Lao-tzu and Chuang-tzu are related thematically, they could not be more dissimilar stylistically, the terse poetry of the Lao-tzu (“like mountain peaks rising from the mist”) against the funny, garrulous prose of the Chuang-tzu (“like a bath in maple syrup”- yummy but hard to get out of.) iv) In the Chuang-tzu tao is sometimes used in a clearly negative fashion eg in Ch2: ... “the sage does not work at anything, does not pursue profit, does not dodge harm, does not enjoy being sought after, does not follow the Way, says nothing yet says something, says something yet says nothing, and wanders beyond the dust and grime.” (trans. Watson 1964– emphasis my own). v) Some central themes of the Lao-tzu (most noticeably tzu-jan & wu wei) are effectively absent from the Chaung-tzu and vice versa (death, mutilation, disputation, perspective etc...). However the main reason that I have come to doubt that Chuang-tzu is talking of the Tao in the manner of Lao-tzu and other “Taoists”, is that his philosophy can be far better understood if we jettison the presumption that he is (and, of course, it is only a presumption – the idea of a unified school of “Taoism” first appears in texts in the Han period; half a millennia later!). I noted above that the Lao-tzu is not quoted (and Lao-tzu himself barely appears) in the Chaung-tzu. On the other hand one of the most regularly appearing characters is Confucius. In Confucius' writings tao is an important concept; what he is proposing is that if people follow the tao of the early Chou dynasty (a practice of ritual and cultivation of virtues). Also noted above is the fact that Chuang-tzu was clearly familiar with Confucian writings and made liberal use of their characters and stories. Is it not eminently more reasonable to suppose than Chuang-tzu would use tao in the manner of Confucius rather than the manner of Lao-tzu? I think that instead of interpreting tao in the Chaung-tzu as some philosophical entity: Lao-tzu's “the Way” (as in: “The Way which can be the Way is not the constant Way”); we should instead interpret it in a manner far closer to Confucius' understanding of it: that is “a way” (as in: “a butcher's way is to carve”). It also seems to me that such an interpretation makes a good deal of passages significantly more comprehensible (chapter 2 in particular). For example; the passage I quoted above: ... “the sage ... does not follow the Way,... and wanders beyond the dust and grime.” If my position is accepted we can translate this far better: ... “the sage... does not follow any way... but wanders beyond the dust and grime” - ie the sage is no beholden to a particular way of doing things (as Mo-tzu, Hui-tzu or Confucius would), but instead wanders along, untouched. By ridding ourselves of the assumption that Chaung-tzu is using tao in a Taoist sense the passage becomes clear. Interestingly the word translated 'wanders' (yu) is used almost as frequently in the Chuang-tzu as tao is (31 to 39) and always in a positive context! It could be argued Chuang-tzu should be seen as a “Yu-ist” - or perhaps better “wanderer” - rather than a “Taoist”.

My apologies; one of my many flaws is hearing my own ideas in other's words... Will start a topic in the subforum http://http://thetaobums.com/topic/24725-is-chaung-tzu-a-taoist/

This idea is of particular interest to me. There is an argument to be made in the Chaung-tzu inner chapters that we should not translate tao as "The Way" but merely "a way". In this sense Chuang-tzu may not be a traditional Taoist at all, but rather an advocate of "tao-practice". There are hints in Ch2 that Chuang-tzu is suspicious of any kind of simple "unity" (ie a Tao rather than tao): "...the myriad things and I are one." Now that we are one, can I still say something? Already have called us one, did I succeed in not saying something? One and the saying makes two, two and one makes three. Proceeding from here even an expert calculator cannot get to the end of it ... if we take the step from nothing to something we arrive at three ... ! Take no step at all... (trans. Graham 1981) Chuang-tzu seems to be saying we shouldn't even try and talk of a single Tao; but instead "take no step at all". Or as you so succinctly put it wu tao !

Couldn't agree more. As for empty/full and function - I am still rolling it around my head. Actually reading the 'valley spirit' thread made me think about it again. I suppose it could be argued that a cup is at its most functional when it is empty - so there is that. Similarly the empty/full passages might be taken as an exposition on the functioning of ch'i. Ch'i at is most "tenuous" (ie on the point of emptiness) is at its most potent; the air we ned to live, the forming of dew on grass in the morning mists etc... I think the mistake I was making was looking for some single explanation; I forgot I was reading poetry!

Couldn't agree more. Certainly there are those who meditate to reach the one (think Western mystical traditions). There are also those who meditate to reach zero (South Asian tradition - Buddhism, Hinduism etc...) However there are also many intra-worldly forms of mysticism and meditation which do neither; and in fact would treat the idea of meditative practice as "aiming for" as missing the point. The Western Philosopher Alisdair MacIntyre in After Virtue makes a nice distinction between performing an activity for a goal, and performance for performance's sake - which he refers to as outer and inner goods. It seems, from the quote at least, that Goleman misses the mystical/meditative performance as an 'inner good'. This type of meditative practice, being without any goal, would be, as you astutely point out, Unbounded. Interesting OP!