Kevin3777 Posted February 20, 2011 I love the book of Chuang tzu, and have read a couple translations of it, but I am confused about the chapters with Confucius in it. I don't understand the point Chaung Tzu is getting at. I have been told that chaung tzu is making fun of confucius in these chapters, but i dont understand how. Is he merely showing us examples of what confucius would say in certain situations, so we have something to compare taoism to? Or is he making fun of confucius (if this is the case, I don't understand the jokes)? Please help me with this. I feel like there is a major part of this book that is going way over my head. Thank you. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted February 20, 2011 Hi Kevin, Good question. I think the "Conversations" were more of a compare/contrast process between the Taoist and Confucian philosophies. And, of course, the theme was on trying to point out what Chuang Tzu saw as the weakness of Confucian philosophy and presented the Taoist way of viewing what was considered weaknesses in Confucian philosophy. Remember that when Chuang Tzu lived Taoist philosophy was already being influenced by Confucian (as well as Buddhist) philosophy and this may have been an attempt to point out what these influences were and try to keep Taoism Taoist. The last part of my "Taoist Philosophy" threads I am presenting will include all of the "Conversations" so if you like you can hang around and we can discuss each of these. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
manitou Posted February 20, 2011 It seems to me that Daoism goes deeper than Confucianism. Confucist sayings are wonderful, and I get the impression that they're more intended for the common good then the inner development. Maybe I'm wrong here, it's been a while since I've looked at Confucius. I'm kind of excited about the writings in the Nei Yeh after having read it this morning. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kevin3777 Posted February 22, 2011 Thank you for your replies, but I am still confused. I was hoping people could comment on a specific section, just to help me understand a little better. For example, in the first section of chapter four, what are we supposed to think of Confucius. Should we think he is wise in this passage, or is Yen Hui the wise one, or are they both spitting out nonsense? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Procurator Posted February 22, 2011 Thank you for your replies, but I am still confused. I was hoping people could comment on a specific section, just to help me understand a little better. For example, in the first section of chapter four, what are we supposed to think of Confucius. Should we think he is wise in this passage, or is Yen Hui the wise one, or are they both spitting out nonsense? no wonder you are confused, most of ppl are. the simple truth is that there was no such thing as separate confucianism or daoism back then or even now. those are meaningless western constructs. as to the specific section post it here for reference and i will explain it based on chinese original. current translations are pretty much worthless. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
manitou Posted February 22, 2011 (edited) I have a book right here on my desk, it's the writings of Chuangtse. It's interpreted by Lin Yutang; but the chapters are not ennumerated. Chapter 1, he's calling 'A Happy Excursion', where he talks about the p'eng bird. Chapter 2, he calls it 'On Levelling all Things', where Tsech'i of Nankuo is leaning on a low table, gazing up at heaven, and has a conversation with Yench'eng Tseyu. Chapter 3, he calls it 'The Preservation of Life', where it talks about Prince Huei's cook cutting up a bullock. Chapter 4 is 'This Human World', where Yen Huei is talking to Confucius. There's also a story about a hunchback. Is this the same Chapter 4 that you're looking at? If so, we could try and figure it out together. Edited February 22, 2011 by manitou Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kevin3777 Posted February 22, 2011 Yes, that chapter 4 is what I'm referring to. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
manitou Posted February 22, 2011 Well, let's give it a try. Story 1 in This Human World: Yen Huei is leaving Confucius, tells Confucius he's headed to the State of Wei. He tells Confucius that he hears that the prince of Wei has an unmanageable disposition, behaving as if the people were of no account, won't see his own faults. Sounds like Gadhafi. The people don't know where to turn to help. Apparently this fellow feels that he can do some good. Confucius says Alas, you'll only be going to your doom, you donkey. The Tao doesn't 'bustle about'. Confucius tells him to first strengthen his own character before he tries to strengthen others. Apparently this fellow needed a little work. He says a most important sentence to him here: Virtue evaporates by motion into desire for fame, and knowledge ends in contentions. (How very true! How often do we see contention on this forum due to knowledge?) He goes so far as to say that both (assumedly both fame and knowledge) are instruments of evil, and are not proper principles of living. I had to read this next paragraph in the first story a couple times, but I think it's saying that if we try to shove our preachings on wicked men, we will be hated for our goodness; in that sense, he calls the prosthylitizer a "messenger of evil", and you will in turn be the victim of evil from others. The 'On the other hand' paragraph (if the Prince loves the good and hates evil, what object will you have in inviting him to change his ways?), it seems that Confucius is telling him not to make that judgment from a distance. How do we really know the Prince's heart isn't in the right place? Maybe it is, and the circumstances make it seem that it isn't. It is apparent that Confucius is able to see that his friend is thinking in terms of 'victory and loss' when it comes to changing the Prince and his kingdom. He seems to throw the onus right back on his friend, to have him see how much of what he wants to do is caused by his own ego. What is it that you see in this first story, Kevin? Can you expand or disagree in some way? I'd love to hear your thoughts. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kevin3777 Posted February 23, 2011 Ok. Cool. So it sounds like what I'm hearing is that in the Book of Chuang Tzu Confucius is a messenger of the Taoist philosophy. Chuang Tzu isn't using him as a character that teaches Confucianism, but is in fact more similar to the other sages in the book that speak of the tao. My struggle when reading these Confucius passages in the past has been that I would continually second guess or question everything Confucius said; thinking that Chuang Tzu was making the words of Confucius as antonymous to Taoism. If it's accurate to view the Confucius character in the Book of Chuang Tzu as a Taoist than it definitely clears up a lot of confusion, but also brings up more questions. The most basic question is why is Chaung Tzu using the founder of Confucianism, a philosophy considered to be in natural opposition to Taoism, as someone who teaches Taoism? I really appreciate everyone's help here. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ken Posted February 23, 2011 (edited) Why do you insist on one interpretation? First of all there is The Dao (道）, and from the Dao, there arises many aspects, interpretations and extensions of it. These different branches or extensions of the Dao became different schools of thoughts, for examples, Daoism, Confucianism, Mohism, Legalism and Militarianism etc. With the exception of Daoism, each school only exemplify a limited aspect of Dao. And so in some area Confucianism "gets it right" and so Zhuangzi used it as a good example, and in other situation where Confucianism "gets it wrong", Zhuangzi used it as a counter-example. Ok. Cool. So it sounds like what I'm hearing is that in the Book of Chuang Tzu Confucius is a messenger of the Taoist philosophy. Chuang Tzu isn't using him as a character that teaches Confucianism, but is in fact more similar to the other sages in the book that speak of the tao. My struggle when reading these Confucius passages in the past has been that I would continually second guess or question everything Confucius said; thinking that Chuang Tzu was making the words of Confucius as antonymous to Taoism. If it's accurate to view the Confucius character in the Book of Chuang Tzu as a Taoist than it definitely clears up a lot of confusion, but also brings up more questions. The most basic question is why is Chaung Tzu using the founder of Confucianism, a philosophy considered to be in natural opposition to Taoism, as someone who teaches Taoism? I really appreciate everyone's help here. Edited February 23, 2011 by Ken Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted February 23, 2011 Nice posts y'all. I hope you haven't used up all your words by the time I get to posting those conversations a little later. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
manitou Posted February 23, 2011 I'm going to make a sweeping generalization that will give folks something to jump on. I've read a lot of Confucius (Lin Yutang includes much of Confucius in his book "The Wisdom of China and India" (published 1942). It appears to me that Confucius is very good for the common man, the man who isn't seriously pursuing inner understanding or understanding of the Tao. Confucius' utterances are very adaptable to everyday living. The Taoist way of life is much more concerned with the inner dynamic to get to the point of understanding wu-wei. It necessarily involves getting to know yourself very well - I don't think Confucius places as much emphasis on that. I could be way off the charts here - it's been a while since I read a lot of Confucius. But that was my general impression. I think that Confucius and the TTC or Laotse will agree on about 90% of the philosophy. where it separates is where it gets down to the sorcery of wu-wei. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted February 23, 2011 I would enjoy disagreeing with you but I think you are pretty much on track. I wouldn't put it as high as 90% though. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
manitou Posted February 23, 2011 I would enjoy disagreeing with you You cantankerous old fart, you. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted February 23, 2011 You cantankerous old fart, you. Hehehe. I resemble that remark. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Otis Posted February 23, 2011 I'm just finishing up Fung Yu-Lan's interpretation of the Chuang-Tzu, and he gives info in his first appendix that pertains to this question: Most people have the impression that in the history of Chinese philosophy there was little progress. This impression is created by the fact that most Chinese philosophers were what Chuang Tzu called "followers of antiquity." When they had ideas, instead of expressing those ideas directly in their own names, they would read them into the sayings of some ancient authority as if they had found them already there. I suppose that Lao Tzu (and all the other quoted sages), like Confucius, serves as just another literary device for Chuang-Tzu. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
