ChiDragon Posted December 11, 2011 cross referencing the zhuangzi, I've read the idea, what's the use in being useful... will not a tree grow large if a boat/wo/man cannot use it's wood for his/her ship? Therefore, is it not better to not be useful? Please keep in mind that Zhuangzi was being individualistic. His basic philosophy was to be freed from external influence which might affect his life style. He was thinking about himself being not useful, so, others cannot and will not take advantage of him. Hence, he can enjoy life in his own world. In this scenario, ZZ was preferred that the tree to be not useful. So, the tree can grow naturally throughout its lifespan instead of dying young. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
whitesilk Posted December 11, 2011 ChiDragon, Correct me if I'm wrong the Tao Verse 11 is speaking of keeping a useful mind by keeping it empty, yet you seem to be saying individualistically or, rather, holistically, one should be able to live out their years in uselessness? A part of the whole may be useful, yet remain entirely useless to live out one's years? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChiDragon Posted December 12, 2011 (edited) whitesilk... Chapter 11 of TTC: On the last line 無之有用(the function of empty space) was indicated that LaoTze was pointing out the usefulness of the empty space of some objects. There was nothing about the mind was mentioned. He was comparing the empty space with solid objects in his philosophy. He was putting emphasis on the empty space of an object rather than the object itself. In the case with ZhuangTze: ZZ was using human affair to point out that one was being useless apparently to others. So, others will leave him alone. However, ZhuangTze was useful to himself and tried to make an easy and comfortable life without any outside influence. Please keep in mind we are talking about two philosophers with different ideas. It was not wise to interpret one's idea into another. ZhuangTZe's character was very individualistic while LaoTze was very holistic. Thus we must not mix the ideas of the two for a better understanding of their philosophies individually. Edited December 12, 2011 by ChiDragon Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
whitesilk Posted December 15, 2011 whitesilk... Chapter 11 of TTC: On the last line 無之有用(the function of empty space) was indicated that LaoTze was pointing out the usefulness of the empty space of some objects. There was nothing about the mind was mentioned. He was comparing the empty space with solid objects in his philosophy. He was putting emphasis on the empty space of an object rather than the object itself. In the case with ZhuangTze: ZZ was using human affair to point out that one was being useless apparently to others. So, others will leave him alone. However, ZhuangTze was useful to himself and tried to make an easy and comfortable life without any outside influence. Please keep in mind we are talking about two philosophers with different ideas. It was not wise to interpret one's idea into another. ZhuangTZe's character was very individualistic while LaoTze was very holistic. Thus we must not mix the ideas of the two for a better understanding of their philosophies individually. From my experience, Old Teacher speaks only of life and those which live and have breathe. So, please, explain to me how Lao-Tzu is speaking of something inanimate? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lienshan Posted December 15, 2011 From my experience, Old Teacher speaks only of life and those which live and have breathe. So, please, explain to me how Lao-Tzu is speaking of something inanimate? 故有之以為利無之以為用 Therefore is materially considered beneficial and nonmaterially considered useful. There are more ways to read and understand the old text. I read and understand it as an arguement against the "yin and yang theory"! He only deals directly with the subject in his chapter 42 writing: The tenthousand things carry yin on the back and hold yang in arms. He defines yin and yang as material related only dealing with what's beneficial. What's nonmaterial and thus useful can't be discriminated as being either yin or yang. "sukha" (having a good axe hole) and "dukha" (having a poor axe hole) is a matter of comfort. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
9th Posted December 15, 2011 He defines yin and yang as material related only dealing with what's beneficial.What's nonmaterial and thus useful can't be discriminated as being either yin or yang. "sukha" (having a good axe hole) and "dukha" (having a poor axe hole) is a matter of comfort. I found that etymology to be interesting. For those who are unfamiliar with the term, the first noble truth of buddhism is "Life is duhkha". The second noble truth is "The cause of duhkha is desire" (craving, attachment, etc.). The third is "There is a path to follow which will end duhkha". The tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao The name that can be named is not the eternal Name. The unnameable is the eternally real. Naming is the origin of all particular things. Free from desire, you realize the mystery. Caught in desire, you see only the manifestations. Yet mystery and manifestations arise from the same source. This source is called darkness. Darkness within darkness. The gateway to all understanding. - Ch. 1, Tao Te Ching Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChiDragon Posted December 15, 2011 (edited) From my experience, Old Teacher speaks only of life and those which live and have breathe. So, please, explain to me how Lao-Tzu is speaking of something inanimate? whitesilk... The lesson in Chapter 11 was suggesting us not to just look at matters superficially. e.g. Most people looked at a cup as a cup was being useful, but LoaTze would like to look at it differently. He sees the space in the cup was useful rather than the cup itself. He does not follow the traditional way of looking at things. He looks at the Yin to reflect the Yang. In other words, let's not see things as they are appeared which might be deceiving. Thus we must look at them closely and get to the bottom of things to find the truth. Edited December 16, 2011 by ChiDragon Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
whitesilk Posted December 18, 2011 (edited) chidragon, Referring to verse 66, "Why do the hundred rivers turn and rush toward the sea...", LaoTsu makes a clear metaphor between what is inanimate and what has life. Implicit in verse 11 (the current discussion) is such a metaphor which is not so explicit to understand. There are many concepts and ways of understanding this verse, yet, for me, it is simple, he refers to the empty mind as opposed to an active one. yu chih wei li being thus makes gain wu chih yi wei yung non-being thus makes use Taken such as this, there is an understanding, of mine, that thought is pertintent to being. Perhaps, this stems from the western philosophy, "I think, therefore, I am." Edited December 19, 2011 by whitesilk Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChiDragon Posted December 18, 2011 chidragon, yu chih wei li wu being thus makes gain wu chih yi wei yung non-being thus makes use Taken such as this, there is an understanding, of mine, that thought is pertintent to being. Perhaps, this stems from the western philosophy, "I think, therefore, I am." 有器之用。 yu chih wei li wu<<--Correction to remove the "wu". The "wu" character does not belong in the phrase. being thus makes gain 無之以為用。 wu chih yi wei yung non-being thus makes use I can see how you have derived to your conclusion. The phrases you have cited were only phrases as run on sentences in English sentence structure. The thought in the first part of each sentence was left out which made the thoughts incomplete. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lienshan Posted December 19, 2011 (edited) 故有之以為利無之以為用 Therefore is materially considered beneficial and nonmaterially considered useful. 以為 means "to think, to consider" The 之 has in this sentence construction a grammatical function changing the preceeding character from being a verb or an adjective into an adverb (-ly). 有之 and 無之 means litteral translated "existing made" and "not existing made". This grammatical function of 之 was common in classical chinese but disappeared in Han-times. So Laozi was writing about how he looked at and defined the spokes and the axle hole of a wheel. the first noble truth of buddhism is "Life is duhkha" The essential difference between buddhism and Laozi's daoism is using your truth: "Life is a poor axle hole" versus "Life is both the spokes and the axlehole" "Life is an illusion" versus "Life is living" Edited December 19, 2011 by lienshan Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
whitesilk Posted February 24, 2019 8 years and I'm still contending with others. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stosh Posted February 25, 2019 12 hours ago, whitesilk said: 8 years and I'm still contending with others. Generally ,it seems to the price of admittance. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
manitou Posted February 26, 2019 On 2/24/2019 at 3:37 PM, whitesilk said: 8 years and I'm still contending with others. Seems to be a good way to gauge our own growth. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
