Rara

I find that just by watching the breath, it slows and calms itself down

@Nerien Would you argue that someone can possibly not be a product of civilisation? If so, I would love to hear how you think this could be possible...

To that I can't. There's always someone out there that feels they have it all locked down. I could even claim to be one. Maybe I am one. Only I will ever know...

Seems this way. Now I'm looking for where Chuang Tzu offers ways of not losing the inborn nature. As a side note, in modern times, we have Bruce Lee. Another man with principles, and the "Tao of Gung Fu". Yet he strived for fame, the perfect body, the ultimate martial art and philosophy. Can poor Mr. Lee, then, be likened to Robber Chih?

I would love to meet someone that isn't!

Hi guys...now you make me think. I've even gone onto the computer to use the multi-quote function! Yes, this is what struck me. Either Zhuangzi believes in bad sages, or Burton Watson must be using a more general translation - which to me is misleading. For example: "Robber Chih must acquire the Way of the sage before he can practice his profession" - Ch10 How can we understand Chinese philosophy in the West if translations aren't too accurate? Yes, I'm trying to get to the bottom of whether there are other versions of "sage". Seems to me though, by what CD is saying, that neither translates as "sage", but instead they have more wordier descriptions. Unless I'm missing something? I would like to see Chapter 12 in this case! Bring it on...

Wow...so you mean Burton Watson has used "Sage" to summarise no. 3? And many of us in the west would see no. 1 as a sage (I would, by definintion)...

This case study is going very well for me. After the Chapter 8 discussion, and having now read this passage for the 3rd time (2nd time as Burton Watson's translation) things are now in context a little more for me. It opens by saying that Robber Chih has the Way...of theives. Not to be confused with Lao Tzu's idea of having the Tao. What's interesting is the use of the word "sage". Where Lao Tzu talks highly of sages, Chuang Tzu claims that gaining sageliness is not hard and a sage can still be bad...a thief even. You can have many bad people in the world...many bad sages. So can we assume that sage and enlightened are separate things? The last part sets up Chapter 29...summarising that a thief can steal what is perceived as small-scale, and a feudal lord will steal large-scale (but disguised as righteous) Therefore, there is no difference between the common thief and a king. Is there another Chapter where Robber Chih is mentioned before 29?

I begin this as a spin off from Owledge's thread entitled "Atheism as a religion" http://thetaobums.com/topic/36593-atheism-as-a-religion/page-23 Mid-debate on this page, you will see a comment from Bubbles about stirring subjective views. This, we do find in most of life. Whether it's in forums, on the news, social media - everyone seems to have an opinion about something. An educated opinion? Or a biased opinion based on values implanted in us. Notice how defensive we get if something of ours is criticised; religion, diet, parenting...the list goes on. In the above debate, I had my own rumble with Iain, challenging him for a more objective view as opposed to going from what had been previously learnt from a yogi/teacher and attempting to apply it to neuroscience and quantum physics. My argument remains the same, and that is that I cannot go by what he argues because I have never experienced, nor had any reason to trust, his spiritual ideas. Yes, I can take them as a positive guideline for enhancing my own wellbeing and those around me, but if we're discussing the nature of the universe, religious and spiritual ideas provide very little other than what I see as beautifully written analogies. However, I can work with an evolutionist approach to at least use the tools that we have at hand to move one step closer, as opposed to making assumptions and links to dogmatic spiritual ideas that lack any form of credibility. That said, Iain if you're reading this, don't think that I don't recognise your same goal. Your commitment to understanding theories of quantum physics, biology, neuroscience etc in addition to your spiritual practices is admirable and proves that you're not a man of blind faith. And feel free to present whatever teachings you have come across from the yogi teacher you spoke about, I just can't guarantee I'll be on board hehe. So Bubbles' point is very valid as this is only one example of many conversations within that thread that had some very big opinions being thrown around. The main trend though, that I found, were almost reasons to argue for atheism as being like a religion. As opposed to looking at the scenario objectively, perhaps first looking at what defines religion and how atheism could (if it does at all) fit the description, some people instead choose to go straight for arguments such as it being a belief system of its own with its own label and following. Pure assumption, as you will see Marbehead fighting his corner many times on how this isn't the case. The same could be said about religious debates in general, they all tend to be based around subjective, biased arguments depending on who wants to be right, as opposed to actualy being right. This is why I love the Tao Te Ching - it's pragmatic. In the same way as science (not all, but a lot) is pragmatic. It takes a lot of faith to read a holy book and take it as seriously word for word. It takes even more faith to deem it as reliable as the information you see directly in front of you. Hypothetical example: A fundamentalist christian believes in the word of God and that it is portrayed in the bible. This same person is told by a friend, but with no evidence, that their son has been seen kissing a man. How do you predict his reaction? Most likely dismissing the news because he hasn't seen his son actually doing it. Could he deny this if he had evidence? Probably not. So in this case, he has made a choice about what he wants to believe. He wants to believe in the word of God and that it is portrayed throughout the bible. He wants to believe that his son is a straight man and that his friend is mistaken. Therefore there is a lack of objective thinking within this person - but it spares his feelings none the less. Of course, we don't even know if his son was actually kissing the man. That doesn't stop us trying to find the truth though, but his father probably wants to leve it there as he is worried about what he might find out. A Recent example: I was on Twitter the other day when over here in the UK, there was a huge storm over what this old talk show veteran said: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeOsBeeeEjI In context, she is talking about a professional footballer's crime of raping a woman and his rights to return back to the team. Due to her wording, trolls on Twitter went mad. Apparently she defended the rapist and blamed the victim. Looking at the video objectively, what do you see? Personally, I heard her say that she in no way was "minimising rape" and that his actions were "reprehensible". Yes she did also say that the victim was very "drunk" and that it "wasn't violent", but this is fact stating. That is all I can say about that. People on Twitter would say "Judy, all rape is violent", which is a fair statement to make although, in this circumstace, as the court files confirmed, there was no evidence of bodily harm. Even though forcing sex is violent intent, in context with what she was saying, it is clear that the attack was not as severe as say, if he drugged and/or beat her. The justice system has different grades of violence, and this is why someone will get more jail time for murder than manslaughter. More for GBH than a quick one punch in a bar before walking out and calming down. She acknowledged that he had done a bad crime, and that he had done his time. The law sees the footballer, (Ched Evans if you want to research this yourself) fit to be let back out into the world and therefore Judy recognised this. Still, Judy Finnigan had to make a public apology due to the subjective opinions and rants on Twtter. It resulted in her daughter receiving rape threats. I know, right! The wonderful opinion of "Oh, well let's see how she likes it if her daughter gets raped" mentality. The power of subjective opinion, aka, believe what suits you at the time. So I wish to express the importance, and hopefully convince you that we should not be debating with our own personal biases. If we do, we find ourselves desparate to look out for ourselves in situations that require a neutral and practical solution. There is no harm in having our own preferences in life, depending on what they are of course, but an open mind to logic and evidence should not be discarded for dogma that could be likened to sheer imagination.

This could be hard work...what makes you think he could be? Other than his perhaps selfish nature. My lazy wiki research so far implies that he wouldn't go as far as to steal (harm people) In the meantime, shall we check out the next chapter in the list?

Cool, thanks. Wow, many traces to Yorkshire Looks likely that any "positive" Robin Hood stories are the biased and written by supporters. Any negative would obviously come from the victims. Interestimg how yet again, this is a matter of perspective. I bet even Santa Clause has his darkside.

Is this the same Yang Zhu? http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yang_Zhu

Ok cool, so this mention is reiterating that Robber Chih does "deluded and perverse practices"... For the most part, yes. But this can get confusing, and this is what I'm struggling with. Egoism, maybe. Selfishness, maybe. Couldn't we argue that Robber Chih therefore had these attributes? The writer (seeing "I" written so much, I want to say Chuang Tzu...but for contextual ease, I'll say the writer) talks about joy, and looking inside at this inner nature. But what is this inner nature? What if this is Robber Chih's inner nature? What did Chuang Tzu and his followers do differently to other men that gave them the edge over the characters they talk down about? As entertained as I was by the book, some of it did seem like it was coming from a poor person that didn't get on with what we now call the capatalist world, and just decided to walk around outside, having a song and dance, sticking his fingers up at officials EDIT: I know that you refer to Chuang Tzu as an anarchist...this is clear. Well-mannered enough not to steal though, which is nice. I know of modern anarchists that steal a lot.

Ooh, where can I find out more?

Nono...that's why I opened the discussion. Us in the west seem to have read translations that implied Robber Chih had more virtue, and in regard to Chapter 29, that Confucious was the real joke. But if we can find otherwise, it would be good to know! Like you say, my interpretation is only an interpretation. Any more info that proves my view to be wrong, I welcome. I wish you took part in my thread in General Discussion "Objective vs Subjective". You could have been on my team haha.

One day we will become a detective duo. I shall have a look.

Yes, I see now. They could have at least had some sort of connecting word like "similarly". That said, Chinese syntax is quite different to ours! ChiDragon can maybe tell us more about the writing style...

Yes, I can't seem to find any online resources but if you do, or find any books, let me know! Even if he is fictional, I like a good villain in literature/film!

Haha, I make no connection with the slave boy/girl with Po Yi and Robber Chih...like most of Chuang Tzu, it should be separated into paragraphs! So the Po Yi/Robber Chih comparrison is straight forward. The writer effectively says: you cannot criticise the life of Robber Chih when the more respected man effectively wasted his life the same way. But neither man has the way of the sage...

Yes, just realised 25 must have been a typo. Sure, fancy copying and pasting them in order, then we can analyse bit by bit?

I have a feeling that we will probably find out more about him as we study the chapters. Shall we roll all the main ones into this thread? Perhaps good translations of 10, 25 and 29? Edit: Actually, just scanned 25 and cant see him mentioned.

So, you are saying that "principle" is the correct translation, and "Tao" or "way" is inaccurate?

Hmmm... But I understood the chapter to be talking about mastery - similar to the butcher and ox... That a thief should be a master, or not bother. I don't know why moral principle nor principle would come into it. Despite translation (not my area, I know nothing of Chinese languages) I'm nit convinced what you say here is what the author was getting at...

@Marblehead How about this, Chapter 10? http://ramblingtaoist.blogspot.co.uk/2010/10/zhuangzi-way-of-thieves.html?m=1

Yep, I found that the book was quite hard to read due to many voices and paragraphs that seem to merge together with no obvious correlation.