Chuang Tzu Chapter 1, Section C

[Marblehead]

Plenty gods in some forms of Taoism ... but none in yours.

 

Hehehe. Yep. But we are here talking about Philosophical Taoism, not Religious or Alchemic Taoism.

[Marblehead]

I think there is a theme emerging here which says "that which is true is that which is useful and that which useful is that which can be understood."

 

OR ... you make a thing useful or not by understanding its nature.

 

OR ... stop thinking about things and limits of their uses and start thinking about possibilities.

 

(I keep changing my mind) lol

 

Hehehe. Yes, I think it is valid to say that the usefulness of a thing is based on our understanding of what use it has for 'us'. The useless tree is of no use to the carpenter but it is of use to the weary traveller who wishes to sit for a while in its shade and relax.

[Marblehead]

I feel like an important lesson from this is about envy.

 

Nice post and thoughts.

 

Yes, more will be said about envy later.

[konchog uma]

But is Tao a thing? I suggest not. "God" is always a thing for nearly everyone.

 

they are both transcendental concepts, neither of which it would benefit us to talk about at great length since their scope is quite beyond the limits of language and logic.

 

if in my understanding they are overlapping concepts, moreorless synonymous, and in your understanding, two entirely different things, that is fine. I know better than to debate the nature of either with anyone.

 

also, i say thing for lack of a fitting word. Again, i don't think there IS a fitting word.

 

my point was moreso that the source of life does not care what name you address it by, or whether you see it as personal creator or transpersonal wellspring of energy, or anything else. In my observation, it responds to all those who invoke it regardless of creed or belief system.

Edited October 22, 2011 by anamatva

[Marblehead]

they are both transcendental concepts, neither of which it would benefit us to talk about at great length since their scope is quite beyond the limits of language and logic.

 

Totally agree. The rest of what you said I pretty much agree with as well.

[manitou]

Hehehe.

 

Please everyone, translate in your mind, every time you see the word "God" to read "Tao". There is no "God" in Taoism.

 

 

this is so true....no God in Taoism. The God mindset is of something out there, much like a Santa of sorts. Actually, my thinking has changed over the years, from being taught to worship a 'god' out there that one would petition to, as opposed to now feeling the flame within and feeling at one with it. This appears to be where it resides. The sage (or one who is at One with the Tao, essentially Enlightened) understands that the god of his childhood is truly the void, the place of endless possibility, the Order that underlies all, or as the ancients would say, the manitou; the spirit that underlies everything.

 

My guess is that anyone advanced enough to be involved in this forum would understand the sidestep necessary when seeing the mention of God. Think underlying order.

 

Unfortunately, the journey must be an inner one

[Cosmo]

But is Tao a thing? I suggest not. "God" is always a thing for nearly everyone.

 

I imagine all is verbs.

[Marblehead]

this is so true....

 

Now you are talking 'with' me. Thanks for understanding.

[Marblehead]

I imagine all is verbs.

 

Very good!

 

I will try to not mention this through the rest of the study of Chuang Tzu. Hehehe.

[XieJia]

Maybe we are taking someone else to be Zhuangzi.

 

Zhuangzi may have said 'Stop trying to make something, something else'

 

But that's just someone else.

 

Edited October 23, 2011 by XieJia

[Marblehead]

Maybe we are taking someone else to be Zhuangzi.

 

Zhuangzi may have said 'Stop trying to make something, something else'

 

But that's just someone else.

 

 

Not really. We just got a little off topic even though it was an associated concept.

[XieJia]

lol, am just trying to summarize my way of looking at chapter one.

 

[ChiDragon]

You guys are way ahead of me. I haven't got this far yet.

 

ZZ says: "A thing become useless was because its function has not been utilized to the ultimate by its user. Thus it was useless."

Edited October 23, 2011 by ChiDragon

[Marblehead]

You guys are way ahead of me. I haven't got this far yet.

 

ZZ says: "A thing become useless was because its function has not been utilized to the ultimate by its user. Thus it was useless."

 

Yeah. And he will be talking more of this concept of useful/useless.

[ChiDragon]

Hehehe. Yep. But we are here talking about Philosophical Taoism, not Religious or Alchemic Taoism.

 

People...

I think we should get ourselves educated about this by now. We have come this far after all the big discussion in the Tao Te Ching section, we should be able to distinguish Taoism between philosophy and religion. Please leave God out of the discussion in Taoism philosophy. Of course, only if it is not irresistible...

Edited October 24, 2011 by ChiDragon

[dawei]

Hehehe. Yep. But we are here talking about Philosophical Taoism, not Religious or Alchemic Taoism.

You have very strong boundaries like western religion; What one can and cannot do or talk about. It smells of dogma on some level.

 

How do you describe God to an easterner?

 

I feel you need to let go of some chains on the discussion.

[Marblehead]

You have very strong boundaries like western religion; What one can and cannot do or talk about. It smells of dogma on some level.

 

How do you describe God to an easterner?

 

I feel you need to let go of some chains on the discussion.

 

Well, I won't deny the charges but I won't plead guilty either.

 

I have a conservative mentality. Always have. It has served me very, very well.

 

I have never tried to described any god. I have never met one.

 

But then, anyone is welcome to disagree with me. I have no problem with that. I will always state my case and discuss it with whoever. But really, my screen name is Marblehead. That should indicate that I am rather hard-headed.

 

But, in all fairness, I have changed my understandings a couple times while I have been here. All one need do is convince me that I have a faulty understanding.

 

I rarely claim to be 'right'. That is a bit too arrogant for me. But I will support my understandings and opinions until I decide to change them.

 

So, I will apologize to all who feel I am over-bearing. It is not intended directly at anyone in particular. I am just being me. Yes, sometimes I am an ass. Oh well.

[ChiDragon]

Well, I won't deny the charges but I won't plead guilty either.

 

So, I will apologize to all who feel I am over-bearing. It is not intended directly at anyone in particular. I am just being me. Yes, sometimes I am an ass. Oh well.

 

Why should you be the one who is apologizing...??? I really don't understanding.

 

 

PS...

We are talking about philosophy, here, isn't it....???

Edited October 26, 2011 by ChiDragon

[Marblehead]

Why should you be the one who is apologizing...??? I really don't understanding.

 

PS...

We are talking about philosophy, here, isn't it....???

 

Well, I still wanted to apologize because I don't want anyone leaving this sereis just because of me.

 

Yes, I can't remember how many times I have stated that I an a Philosophical Taoist and I do not speak about Religious or Alchemical Taoism. But some feel that when I am talking about Philosophical Taoism they need to point out that there are other aspects of Taoism besides Philosophical.

 

I don't know how much clearer I can make this statement.

 

I talk only of Philosophical Taoism. And Philosophical Taoism has no God. That's just the way life is. Who the F... would I be pretending to be to suggest that others cannot talk about however many gods they wish to talk about?

 

But then, if God is mentioned in a discussion of Taoism, and especially in this series I will, every time without fail, remind everyone that there is no God in Philosophical Taoism.

 

Anyhow, I hope this might my position a little bit clearer. Really, I hope it does because it is rather boring to keep telling other members that there is no God in Philosophical Taoism.

 

Now I hope that I might peace out a little.

[rene]

Well, I still wanted to apologize because I don't want anyone leaving this sereis just because of me.

 

Yes, I can't remember how many times I have stated that I an a Philosophical Taoist and I do not speak about Religious or Alchemical Taoism. But some feel that when I am talking about Philosophical Taoism they need to point out that there are other aspects of Taoism besides Philosophical.

 

I don't know how much clearer I can make this statement.

 

I talk only of Philosophical Taoism. And Philosophical Taoism has no God. That's just the way life is. Who the F... would I be pretending to be to suggest that others cannot talk about however many gods they wish to talk about?

 

But then, if God is mentioned in a discussion of Taoism, and especially in this series I will, every time without fail, remind everyone that there is no God in Philosophical Taoism.

 

Anyhow, I hope this might my position a little bit clearer. Really, I hope it does because it is rather boring to keep telling other members that there is no God in Philosophical Taoism.

 

Now I hope that I might peace out a little.

Marblehead,

 

All that you say is true.

 

I understand, and agree with, your desire to keep this sub-forum substantially in the realm and under the purview of Philosophical Taoism. The problem you will have, here in TB, is that you cannot. Recall when I ran Laoist Temple I did not even let ChuangTzu in! One reason was because of my personal concepts - but the larger reason was because of the tendancy for downstream doctrines to clawback and "find" Religious, Alchemist, and even Buddhist "proof" in the TTC - and it's all the more easy to do this in The Chuang Tzu because of it's more esoteric nature.

 

So I guess it's a matter of what the Chuang Tzu sub-forum is all about: if it's a matter of "What is ZZ saying here" or if it's a matter of "What is ZZ saying here that falls within the parameters of Marblehead's scope and prefered simplicity".

 

I know that everyone, myself included, appreciates the energy and effort you make in starting the chapters and sections. Maybe rather that trying to shephard the whole dialogue, you could launch it... and then sit back to see what others come up with in their interactions? Maybe like cooking a small fish? :shrug:

 

Unless this is in fact a teaching section for you that requires your responses as to if someone else "gets it" or not? If that's the case, I misunderstood the purpose of the Chuang-Tzu subform and please disregard all of the above. (-:

 

warm regards

[ChiDragon]

I don't know how much clearer I can make this statement.

 

I talk only of Philosophical Taoism. And Philosophical Taoism has no God. That's just the way life is. Who the F... would I be pretending to be to suggest that others cannot talk about however many gods they wish to talk about?

 

But then, if God is mentioned in a discussion of Taoism, and especially in this series I will, every time without fail, remind everyone that there is no God in Philosophical Taoism.

 

Anyhow, I hope this might my position a little bit clearer. Really, I hope it does because it is rather boring to keep telling other members that there is no God in Philosophical Taoism.

 

 

Marblehead,

 

All that you say is true.

 

Unless this is in fact a teaching section for you that requires your responses as to if someone else "gets it" or not? If that's the case, I misunderstood the purpose of the Chuang-Tzu subform and please disregard all of the above. (-:

 

warm regards

[Marblehead]

Hi Rene,

 

As always, your thoughts are valid.

 

I hope I have not asserted myself to the point where others think I am trying to "teach" the Chuang Tzu based on "my" understandings.

 

And it is true that Chuang Tzu's mysticism can very easily be attached to Religious and Alchemic Taoism. But that is one of the beauties of it, IMO. I personally believe that it was because of Chuang Tzu that both other schools were able to become established in China.

 

Yes, it had already been suggested that I just sit back and let whoever do whatever. But I believe that if we are going to have a "study" there should be some organization to the effort.

 

I am enjoying how it is going because others are pointing out information that I have either forgotten or that I had never been made aware of.

 

I really don't feel that I have been sheparding the discussions of the sections. Yes, I did protest invoking thoughts that were not part of the section being discussed.

 

Damned if I do and damned if I don't.

[ChiDragon]

逍遙遊篇談論生命不當有所欲求，要順應自然，超越形體上的大小差異，不被物欲引誘，脫離有待，進入無待，體會道的存在，達到逍遙。「逍遙」不是物體現象的事，而是精神層次的事。要能忘記所有功名利祿，忘記自己，摒除所有分別念頭，無小無大，無死無生。如此便可是自我的生命充實完滿，脫離一切羈絆，進入無拘無束的安樂之地。

 

逍遙是一種心靈上得絕對自由，並非外在的表象。當人體查到萬物的律動，與萬化合一時，便可與「道」同遊，達到逍遙。內心感到和諧、舒適，才是真逍遙，強做鎮定，只是表面功夫吧了！

 

A brief summary for this chapter.

 

This chapter is about freeing one's mind with no attachment, with no desire but just follow the natural course of Nature. One should go beyond the difference in size, not attracted by materialistic means, detached from any expectation, but recognize the existence of Tao, attain to a state of unfettered. The state of unfettered is not a physical phenomenon, it is a matter of spiritual stratification. One should forget all the the following: merit, fame, benefit, and rich. One should withdraw the thinking about the contrast in sizes. There is no big or small, no life or death. Therefore, it can fulfill one's life with complacent, detached from all the trammels, and enter to the untrammeled state.

 

The untrammeled state is an absolute freedom in the heart but not an external image. If one can detect the movement of all things and united with them, then, one can be accompanied with Tao all the way in the life journey. Hence, the feeling of harmony and comfort is considered to be having a true free heart as untrammeled.

[Marblehead]

A brief summary for this chapter.

 

Well, sure, but I don't want that much freedom so that I have to sleep on the streets. I really do like my queen sized bed, thank you.

[lienshan]

Can you comment in the applicable thread/section and quote the passage?

Yao ruled the people of the kingdom, and maintained a perfect government within the four seas. Having gone to see the four (Perfect) Ones on the distant hill of Gu Ye, when (he returned to his capital) on the south of the Fen water, his throne appeared no more to his deep-sunk oblivious eyes.

 

堯治天下之民 , 平海內之政 , 往見四子藐姑射之山 , 汾水之陽 , 窅然喪其天下焉

 

That in red looks suspect to me. 四子 'Sizi' means the four confucian virtues:

Zhong (忠 Loyalty), Xiao (孝 Filial piety), Jie (節 Continency), Yi (義 Righteousness).

 

That'll say I suspect that 'Sizi' is one of Zhuangzi's fictional persons and not four persons.

That would fit with previous paragraph if the Song hatseller is read as being Confucius himself.