Chuang Tzu Chapter 2, Section C

[Marblehead]

Section C

 

If we were to follow the judgments of the predetermined mind, who would be left alone and without a teacher? Not only would it be so with those who know the sequences (of knowledge and feeling) and make their own selection among them, but it would be so as well with the stupid and unthinking. For one who has not this determined mind, to have his affirmations and negations is like the case described in the saying, 'He went to Yue to-day, and arrived at it yesterday.' It would be making what was not a fact to be a fact. But even the spirit-like Yu could not have known how to do this, and how should one like me be able to do it? But speech is not like the blowing (of the wind); the speaker has (a meaning in) his words. If, however, what he says, be indeterminate (as from a mind not made up), does he then really speak or not? He thinks that his words are different from the chirpings of fledgelings; but is there any distinction between them or not? But how can the Dao be so obscured, that there should be 'a True' and 'a False' in it? How can speech be so obscured that there should be 'the Right' and 'the Wrong' about them? Where shall the Dao go to that it will not be found? Where shall speech be found that it will be inappropriate? Dao becomes obscured through the small comprehension (of the mind), and speech comes to be obscure through the vain-gloriousness (of the speaker). So it is that we have the contentions between the Literati and the Mohists, the one side affirming what the other denies, and vice versa. If we would decide on their several affirmations and denials, no plan is like bringing the (proper) light (of the mind) to bear on them.

 

All subjects may be looked at from (two points of view), from that and from this. If I look at a thing from another's point of view, I do not see it; only as I know it myself, do I know it. Hence it is said, 'That view comes from this; and this view is a consequence of that:' - which is the theory that that view and this (the opposite views) produce each the other. Although it be so, there is affirmed now life and now death; now death and now life; now the admissibility of a thing and now its inadmissibility; now its inadmissibility and now its admissibility. (The disputants) now affirm and now deny; now deny and now affirm. Therefore the sagely man does not pursue this method, but views things in the light of (his) Heaven (-ly nature), and hence forms his judgment of what is right. This view is the same as that, and that view is the same as this. But that view involves both a right and a wrong; and this view involves also a right and a wrong - are there indeed, or are there not the two views, that and this? They have not found their point of correspondency which is called the pivot of the Dao. As soon as one finds this pivot, he stands in the centre of the ring (of thought), where he can respond without end to the changing views; without end to those affirming, and without end to those denying. Therefore I said, 'There is nothing like the proper light (of the mind).'

[konchog uma]

from Victor Mair's "Wandering On The Way: Taoist Tales and Parables"

 

Speech is not merely the blowing of air. Speech is intended to say

something, but what is spoken may not necessarily be valid. If it

is not valid, has anything actually been spoken? Or has speech

never actually occurred? We may consider speech to be distinct

from the chirps of hatchlings, but is there really any difference

between them?

How has the Way become so obscured that there are true

and false? How has speech become so obscured that there are

right and wrong? Could it be that the Way has gone off and is no

longer present? Could it be that speech is present but has lost its

ability to validate? The Way is obscured by partial achievements

speech is obscured by eloquent verbiage. Thus there are contro-

versies between Confucians and Mohists over what's right and

what's wrong. They invariably affirm what their opponents deny

and deny what their opponents affirm . If one wishes to affirm

what others deny and deny what others affirm, nothing is better

than lucidity.

 

Everything is "that" in relation to other things and "this" in

relation to itself. We may not be able to see things from the

standpoint of "that" but we can understand them from the

standpoint of "this." Therefore, it may be said that "that" derives

from "this" and that "this" is dependent upon "that.

"Such is the notion of the cogenesis of "this" and "that."

Nonetheless, from the moment of birth death begins simultaneously,

and from the moment of death birth begins simultaneously. Every affirmation

is a denial of something else, and every denial is an affirmation of

something else . "This" and "that" are mutually dependent; right

and wrong are also mutually dependent. For this reason, the sage

does not subscribe to [the view of absolute opposites] but sees

things in the light of nature, accepting "this" for what it is.

"This" is also "that"; "that" is also "this." "This" implies a

concept of right and wrong; "that" also implies a concept of

right and wrong. But is there really a "this" and a "that"? Or is

there really no "this" and no "that"? Where "this" and "that"

cease to be opposites, there lies the pivot of the Way. Only when

the pivot is located in the center of the circle of things can we

respond to their infinite transformations . The transformations

of "right" are infinite and so are the transformations of "wrong."

Therefore, it is said that nothing is better for responding to them

than lucidity!

Edited October 25, 2011 by anamatva

[konchog uma]

for once, Mair divides the chapter up the same as Legge. that was one whole chapter (mair's chap 5)

 

i like the concept of lucidity being defined by an ability to transcend duality, and i love the commentary about the chirping of birds... how many times have i reminded myself that peoples talking is only arbitrarily meaningful and no different in most cases than said chirping?? ahhh Chuang Tzu

[XieJia]

(Upon reading this chapter; I have a feeling of not wanting to comment but can't resist the urge of putting something down on the table.)

 

Boo! Let me just blow air...

 

[Marblehead]

(Upon reading this chapter; I have a feeling of not wanting to comment but can't resist the urge of putting something down on the table.)

 

Boo! Let me just blow air...

 

 

The less you say the more profound you sometimes appear to be.

[ChiDragon]

The less you say the more profound you sometimes appear to be.

 

Disagree in silence or in a subtle way. That's what was called the "scholastic dignity" or "scholastic arrogance." Either way, it will work....

[dawei]

I don't like the opening line where 'Xin' is translated as "Mind". Lin Yutang opens it as:

"Now if we are to be guided by our prejudices, who shall be without a guide?"

 

I tend to like this a little more since he treats the compound 'Chengxin' as "prejudice" and doesn't refer to teachers specifically; I almost want to use the word 'model' as in principle, at the end instead.

 

He touches on the spirit (or divine nature) of Yu (founder of Xia), a paradox of Hui Shi (or Master Hui) who is from the School of Names, as well he mentions the Ru (Confucian scholars) and Mo (Mohist) as quarreling about right and wrong. Even our speech is similar to the birds but their speech (chirp) is not in distinction but in the moment. He makes quite a point here using the PAST to explain the present... an important concept in chinese thought on 'truth' or the [following the] true Way.

 

ZZ truly shows tit-for-tat (this for that): The Way is obscured through prescription; words through pronouncement. Ergo, the Way (non-distinction) over Words (distinction).

 

I don't like the translation of "light" for 'Ming'. Legge seems to be trying to hard to get to the meaning. This is an inner knowing where distinction is neither this nor that.

Edited October 27, 2011 by dawei

[Marblehead]

I don't like the opening line where 'Xin' is translated as "Mind". Lin Yutang opens it as:

"Now if we are to be guided by our prejudices, who shall be without a guide?"

 

I tend to like this a little more since he treats the compound 'Chengxin' as "prejudice" and doesn't refer to teachers specifically; I almost want to use the word 'model' as in principle, at the end instead.

 

Nice.

 

I think that it should be mentioned that there is a distinction between "prejudices" and "preferences".

 

The first is based on ignorance and the second is based on experiencial knowledge.

[dawei]

Nice.

 

I think that it should be mentioned that there is a distinction between "prejudices" and "preferences".

 

The first is based on ignorance and the second is based on experiencial knowledge.

Maybe based on our western approach... but we are talking ancient china here...

 

Our mind and muscles are prejudice to a 'way'... it follows what it thinks is 'right'... based on past constructs. This they can both be the same; This is That.

[Marblehead]

Maybe based on our western approach... but we are talking ancient china here...

 

Our mind and muscles are prejudice to a 'way'... it follows what it thinks is 'right'... based on past constructs. This they can both be the same; This is That.

 

Hehehe. Valid point. I don't know how others think and sometimes I wonder about myself.

[ChiDragon]

from Victor Mair's "Wandering On The Way: Taoist Tales and Parables"

 

Speech is not merely the blowing of air. Speech is intended to say

something, but what is spoken may not necessarily be valid. If it

is not valid, has anything actually been spoken? Or has speech

never actually occurred? We may consider speech to be distinct

from the chirps of hatchlings, but is there really any difference

between them?

How has the Way become so obscured that there are true

and false? How has speech become so obscured that there are

right and wrong? Could it be that the Way has gone off and is no

longer present? Could it be that speech is present but has lost its

ability to validate? The Way is obscured by partial achievements

speech is obscured by eloquent verbiage. Thus there are contro-

versies between Confucians and Mohists over what's right and

what's wrong. They invariably affirm what their opponents deny

and deny what their opponents affirm . If one wishes to affirm

what others deny and deny what others affirm, nothing is better

than lucidity.......................

 

Talking and breathing are really two different things.

The words in a speech has meanings,

but only the meaning of a specific expression is different; and it is also uncertain.

Are the words within the speech really have meaning or

basically ever have any specific meanings at all?

Someone reckon that there is a difference between the human speech and the bird call;

is there any objection to this concept or not?

Is it because that Tao is always hidden, then, is that why there are "real" and "unreal".

The meanings in speeches are hidden too. Hence, that is why there are "right" and "wrong".

Tao comes and goes, therefore, is it not able to describe it at the present?

The meanings of the words were hidden in the sayings,

is that why one cannot tell the difference between right and wrong?

Tao is hidden within each little achievement;

the meaning of the saying was hidden in the beautiful words.

 

The conflict between the Confucians and Mohist was for this reason.

One thought that a fallacy which was reckoned by others is correct.

Also, one thought that the fact which was reckoned by others is incorrect.

If one wants to prove that the fact which was reckoned by others is incorrect

or the fallacy which was reckoned by others is correct.

It's best not going into too deep in understanding its reasons.

 

All matters have their external "that";

also they are having themselves "this".

In using one's own point of view, really,

there is no way to understand the counterpart.

One must understand oneself in order to understand the other.

Hence, that is why it was said "that" was from "this";

and "this" was also because of having "that" then it is "this".

"This" and "that" are relative and mutually making each other to exist.

All matters are so! One side is alive and the other is death,

life and death mutually follow each other; one time they attract each other;

and another time they repel each other.

They were mutually aiding and opposing each other.

It was because we have "yes" then we can have "no".

In the contrary, it was also because we have "no" then we have "yes".

For the same reason, sage conducts matter not according to his own wish

but inquire the wish of Heaven and acted upon.

Hence, "this" here is also "that" there;

and in the same token, "that" there is the same as "this" here.