Chuang Tzu Chapter 2, Section D

[Marblehead]

Section D

 

By means of a finger (of my own) to illustrate that the finger (of another) is not a finger is not so good a plan as to illustrate that it is not so by means of what is (acknowledged to be) not a finger; and by means of (what I call) a horse to illustrate that (what another calls) a horse is not so, is not so good a plan as to illustrate that it is not a horse, by means of what is (acknowledged to be) not a horse. (All things in) heaven and earth may be (dealt with as) a finger; (each of) their myriads may be (dealt with as) a horse.

 

Does a thing seem so to me? (I say that) it is so. Does it seem not so to me? (I say that) it is not so. A path is formed by (constant) treading on the ground. A thing is called by its name through the (constant) application of the name to it. How is it so? It is so because it is so. How is it not so? It is not so, because it is not so. Everything has its inherent character and its proper capability. There is nothing which has not these. Therefore, this being so, if we take a stalk of grain and a (large) pillar, a loathsome (leper) and (a beauty like) Xi Shi, things large and things insecure, things crafty and things strange; they may in the light of the Dao all be reduced to the same category (of opinion about them).

 

It was separation that led to completion; from completion ensued dissolution. But all things, without regard to their completion and dissolution, may again be comprehended in their unity - it is only the far reaching in thought who know how to comprehend them in this unity. This being so, let us give up our devotion to our own views, and occupy ourselves with the ordinary views. These ordinary views are grounded on the use of things. (The study of that) use leads to the comprehensive judgment, and that judgment secures the success (of the inquiry). That success gained, we are near (to the object of our search), and there we stop. When we stop, and yet we do not know how it is so, we have what is called the Dao. When we toil our spirits and intelligence, obstinately determined (to establish our own view), and do not know the agreement (which underlies it and the views of others), we have what is called 'In the morning three.' What is meant by that 'In the morning three?' A keeper of monkeys, in giving them out their acorns, (once) said, 'In the morning I will give you three (measures) and in the evening four.' This made them all angry, and he said, 'Very well. In the morning I will give you four and in the evening three.' His two proposals were substantially the same, but the result of the one was to make the creatures angry, and of the other to make them pleased - an illustration of the point I am insisting on. Therefore the sagely man brings together a dispute in its affirmations and denials, and rests in the equal fashioning of Heaven. Both sides of the question are admissible.

Edited October 26, 2011 by Marblehead

[konchog uma]

from Victor Mair's "Wandering on the Way: Taoist Tales and Parables"

 

 

To use a finger as a metaphor for the nonfingerness of a finger is

not as good as using nonfingerness as a metaphor for the

nonfingerness of a finger. To use a horse as a metaphor for the

nonhorseness of a horse is not as good as using nonhorseness as

a metaphor for the nonhorseness of a horse. Heaven and earth

are the same as a finger; the myriad things are the same as a horse.

 

Affirmation lies in our affirming; denial lies in our denying.

A way comes into being through our walking upon it; a thing is

so because people say that it is. Why are things so? They are so

because we declare them to be so. Why are things not so? They

are not so because we declare them to be not so. All things are

possessed of that which we may say is so; all things are possessed

of that which we may affirm. There is no thing that is not so;

there is no thing that is not affirmable.

 

Thus, whether it be a tiny blade of grass or a mighty pillar, a

hideous leper or beauteous Hsi Shih, no matter how peculiar or

fantastic, through the Way they all become one. To split some-

thing up is to create something else; to create something is to

destroy something else. But for things in general, there is neither

creation nor destruction, for they all revert to join in Unity.

Only the perceptive understand that all things join in Unity.

For this reason they do not use things themselves but lodge in

commonality.

It is all a result of their understanding the

mutual dependence of "this" and "that." To have achieved this

understanding but not be conscious of why it is so is called "The

Way."

 

 

To weary the spiritual intelligence by trying to unify things

without knowing that they are already identical is called "three in

the morning." Why is this called " three in the morning"? Once

upon a time, there was a monkey keeper who was feeding little

chestnuts to his charges. "I'll give you three in the morning and

four in the evening," he told them. All the monkeys were angry.

'All right, then," said the keeper, "I'll give you four in the

morning and three in the evening . " All the monkeys were happy

with this arrangement. Without adversely affecting either the

name or the reality of the amount that he fed them, the keeper

acted in accordance with the feelings of the monkeys . He too

recognized the mutual dependence of "this" and "that." Conse-

quently, the sage harmonizes the right and wrong of things and

rests at the center of the celestial potter's wheel . This is called

"dual procession."

[XieJia]

If this keeps up; we will have to say goodbye soon.

In saying goodbye, is the same as not saying goodbye.

Therefore it is saying goodbye.

 

"I'll give you three in the morning and four in the evening,"

 

Anyone know what significances is the number four and three in Daoism?

 

Edited October 26, 2011 by XieJia

[Marblehead]

I'm glad Y'all are awake and noticed that I errored in naming the thread Section C instead of properly naming it Section D.

 

I think it is fixed now.

 

"Anyone know what significances is the number four and three in Daoism?"

 

Someone told me once a long time ago but I have long since forgotten.

 

You gonna' share?

[XieJia]

You gonna' share?

 

(In my perspective/Interpretation)

 

Monkey -> (The Un-calmed mind or People entering Path)

 

Three -> (Ways of Nourishing the Jing, Qi, Shen)

 

Four -> ( The principles of Dao, De, Wu Wei and Pu 樸)

 

So related this to the Keeper, Spiritual Wisdom, Morning, Evenings, Monkeys, Unity.

 

Edited October 27, 2011 by XieJia

[dawei]

(In my perspective/Interpretation)

 

Monkey -> (The Un-calmed mind or People entering Path)

 

Three -> (Ways of Nourishing the Jing, Qi, Shen)

 

Four -> ( The principles of Dao, De, Wu Wei and Pu 樸)

 

So related this to the Keeper, Spiritual Wisdom, Morning, Evenings, Monkeys, Unity.

 

Your prohibited from talking about anything outside of basic philosophy... so don't bring in such alchemy ideas here

 

As you know, this is a known proverb: 朝三暮四 (three in the morning, four in the evening)... better known as 'playing fast and loose'.

 

The monkey's have a fixed mind (predetermined mind as Legge says) and are unhappy with this idea; but ZZ turns it around and offers 4 in the morning and 3 at night; nothing gained or lose in count; just that ZZ shows "this is that"; no real change here but he can play both sides without losing meaning (distinction without distinction).

 

是之謂兩行 - This is called, walking the dual path (True Way).

[Marblehead]

Your prohibited from talking about anything outside of basic philosophy... so don't bring in such alchemy ideas here

 

Hehehe. Yeah, I thought that might be the case but wasn't sure as, like I said, I couldn't remember.

 

But thanks XieJia. Better to understand than to keep on wondering.

 

As you know, this is a known proverb: 朝三暮四 (three in the morning, four in the evening)... better known as 'playing fast and loose'.

 

The monkey's have a fixed mind (predetermined mind as Legge says) and are unhappy with this idea; but ZZ turns it around and offers 4 in the morning and 3 at night; nothing gained or lose in count; just that ZZ shows "this is that"; no real change here but he can play both sides without losing meaning (distinction without distinction).

 

是之謂兩行 - This is called, walking the dual path (True Way).

 

And too, we see the flexibility of the monkey keeper and the inflexibility of the monkeys. And still, the monkeys' inflexibility had no meaning at it root.

[ChiDragon]

Chinese proverb...

朝三暮四: One cannot make up his mind. In the morning was one thing(3) but in the evening it was changed to another(4).

[Marblehead]

Chinese proverb...

朝三暮四: One cannot make up his mind. In the morning was one thing(3) but in the evening it was changed to another(4).

 

Yeah, a lot of stuff happens between morning and evening.

[dawei]

Chinese proverb...

朝三暮四: One cannot make up his mind. In the morning was one thing(3) but in the evening it was changed to another(4).

Yes... a purely modern spin on a classic idiom... and I thought we were supposed to talk ZZ all this time

[Marblehead]

Yes... a purely modern spin on a classic idiom... and I thought we were supposed to talk ZZ all this time

 

You're just not going to let me live that down, are you? You are about the same as one of my hen-pecking wifes. Hehehe.

[XieJia]

Your prohibited from talking about anything outside of basic philosophy... so don't bring in such alchemy ideas here

 

Just to add fuel..

 

 

From my humble experience, I don't know where philosophy stops and practices starts.

Without practices, philosophy won't be of any use other than decorations.

Without philosophy, practices would be tedious/lacks directions.

 

[Marblehead]

Just to add fuel..

 

From my humble experience, I don't know where philosophy stops and practices starts.

Without practices, philosophy won't be of any use other than decorations.

Without philosophy, practices would be tedious/lacks directions.

 

 

It is my opinion that our philosophy should be a guide for us to live our life by. Titles and labels mean next to nothing.

[ChiDragon]

Yes... a purely modern spin on a classic idiom... and I thought we were supposed to talk ZZ all this time

 

朝三暮四

 

本指一養猴人以果子飼養猴子，施以詐術騙猴的故事。見莊子˙齊物論。 後比喻以詐術

欺人，或心意不定、反覆無常。 舊唐書˙卷一三五˙皇甫鎛傳：直以性惟狡詐，言不

誠實，朝三暮四，天下共知，惟能上惑聖聰，足見奸邪之極。元˙楊訥˙西游記˙第

九齣：也是我為人不肖，和這等朝三暮四的便成交。亦作暮四朝三、朝四暮

三。

 

比喻以詐術欺人，或心意不定、反覆無常。

A metaphor for describing a cunning person; indecisive person; changing constantly.

 

Ref: 朝三暮四

朝三暮四 is located at the bottom.

[Harmonious Emptiness]

Reminds me of Buddhist term "Suchness."

 

"When appearances and names are put away and all discrimination ceases, that which remains is the true and essential nature of things and, as nothing can be predicated as to the nature of essence, it is called the "Suchness" of Reality. This universal, undifferentiated, inscrutable, "Suchness" is the only Reality but it is variously characterised as Truth, Mind-essence, Transcendental Intelligence, Noble Wisdom, etc. "

- Lankavatara Sutra

 

3 or 4 in the morning, determining one as this and the other as that, is not seeing "as it is." At least, that's what this chapter seems to be pointing at (with it's nonfingerness.. right..).

Edited October 28, 2011 by Harmonious Emptiness

[ChiDragon]

Reminds me of Buddhist term "Suchness."

 

"When appearances and names are put away and all discrimination ceases, that which remains is the true and essential nature of things and, as nothing can be predicated as to the nature of essence, it is called the "Suchness" of Reality. This universal, undifferentiated, inscrutable, "Suchness" is the only Reality but it is variously characterised as Truth, Mind-essence, Transcendental Intelligence, Noble Wisdom, etc. "

- Lankavatara Sutra

 

3 or 4 in the morning, determining one as this and the other as that, is not seeing "as it is." At least, that's what this chapter seems to be pointing at (with it's nonfingerness.. right..).

 

This is only a pin in a hay stack. I have no idea what this chapter is all about, yet, without going into deeper reading.

[dawei]

Just to add fuel..

 

 

From my humble experience, I don't know where philosophy stops and practices starts.

Without practices, philosophy won't be of any use other than decorations.

Without philosophy, practices would be tedious/lacks directions.

 

yes, that is my very point. If one puts themself on high and tells all the rest what they can talk about or not... it means we can only go by the 'practice' of one and that is where the philosophy stops... it stops very short, may I add...

[dawei]

比喻以詐術欺人，或心意不定、反覆無常。

A metaphor for describing a cunning person; indecisive person; changing constantly.

 

Ref: 朝三暮四

朝三暮四 is located at the bottom.

Funny how you want to quote a modern take on the idiom instead of sticking to ZZ:

 

"equal fashioning of Heaven"... There is NOTHING indecisive for ZZ. The Monkey may be indecisive and it's a pity that man follows the monkey path... and not ZZ... No wonder you said you have no idea what the chapter is about... but you have so many explanations.

[ChiDragon]

----- Personal feeling filter ON ------

 

Funny how you want to quote a modern take on the idiom instead of sticking to ZZ:

 

"equal fashioning of Heaven"... There is NOTHING indecisive for ZZ. The Monkey may be indecisive and it's a pity that man follows the monkey path... and not ZZ... No wonder you said you have no idea what the chapter is about... but you have so many explanations.

------ Personal feeling filter OFF ------

 

 

To weary the spiritual intelligence by trying to unify things

without knowing that they are already identical is called "three in

the morning." Why is this called " three in the morning"? Once

upon a time, there was a monkey keeper who was feeding little

chestnuts to his charges. "I'll give you three in the morning and

four in the evening," he told them. All the monkeys were angry.

'All right, then," said the keeper, "I'll give you four in the

morning and three in the evening . " All the monkeys were happy

with this arrangement. Without adversely affecting either the

name or the reality of the amount that he fed them, the keeper

acted in accordance with the feelings of the monkeys . He too

recognized the mutual dependence of "this" and "that." Conse-

quently, the sage harmonizes the right and wrong of things and

rests at the center of the celestial potter's wheel . This is called

"dual procession."

 

What was ZhuangTze suggesting in this parable...??

 

ZhuangTze used this parable to point out the irony about the ignorance of the monkeys. The monkeys are only having an one track mind. They were just concerning about a partial fact without realizing the final result was the same. Hence, that was why a sage always tried to avoid an argument, especially something is real minor, because he knew there is a way to compromise both sides.

Edited October 31, 2011 by ChiDragon

[dawei]

What was ZhuangTze suggesting in this parable...??

 

ZhuangTze used this parable to point out the irony about the ignorance of the monkeys. The monkeys are only having an one track mind. They were just concerning about a partial fact without realizing the final result was the same. Hence, that was why a sage always tried to avoid an argument, especially something is real minor, because he knew there is a way to compromise both sides.

I quoted ZZ. I already said as much as you concerning the monkey's. But ZZ is using the monkey's to show something about Dao; Dao makes no distinction, has no boundary, does not define by "this or that", etc. The point is not that Dao compromises both sides but that Dao has no sides. This is the source of the Sage's view of life. This is repeated over and over. Just read the previous sections again.

[ChiDragon]

One need to interpret ZZ by the story in each parable metaphorically. It's no longer interpreted by the superficial meanings of the characters as it was done with the Tao Te Ching. It is a brand new ball game with ZZ. If one still wants to play the pronouns and the characters, then one is not really reading into ZZ.

Edited November 1, 2011 by ChiDragon

[Marblehead]

One need to interpret ZZ by the story in each parable metaphorically. It's no longer interpreted by the superficial meanings of the characters as it was done with the Tao Te Ching. It is brand new ball game with ZZ. If one still wants to play the pronouns and the characters, then one is not really reading into ZZ.

 

Well, I think I have done my reading that way as there was no other way for me to do it.

[XieJia]

One need to interpret ZZ by the story in each parable metaphorically. It's no longer interpreted by the superficial meanings of the characters as it was done with the Tao Te Ching. It is brand new ball game with ZZ. If one still wants to play the pronouns and the characters, then one is not really reading into ZZ.

 

True ZZ needed to be interpret metaphorically.

However there must be a reason why ZZ choose certain word to represent something.

Such as why you choose to name yourself ChiDragon, Marblehead as Marblehead, Lienshan as Lienshand, Dawei as Dawei and Xiejia as Xiejia.

There are always stories behind these name, by dismissing it; it would be the same as using A,B or C.

In my humble opinion, I do think that it have some value in looking into.

 

[ChiDragon]

Good Luck......

[ChiDragon]

More monkey business...

 

ZhuangTze was using the monkey story to suggest that one should look at a matter in all aspects instead of just one way. e.g. At first, the keeper told the greedy monkey to have three cups of chestnut in the morning and four in the afternoon. Unfortunately, the monkey only knew that the number four is greater than three. By its one way thinking, the monkey gets upset. However, its keeper look at it both ways, by reversing the order in giving the monkey four cups of chestnut in the morning and three in the afternoon, Then, the monkey was happy.

 

The theme of the simple story was to advise one to be more flexibly in one's thinking. One should be start looking into matters from the same focal point to get a broad view of things. The monkey has a narrow vision which is very deceiving by itself or others.

 

It is true that the monkey story is about "tao(道)". However, this "tao" is different from this "Tao". The character 道 is the same for both "tao" and "Tao". The Tao is the unspeakable eternal Tao of LaoTze; and the tao is the reasonable tao of ZhuangTze. Hence, Tao is the principles of Tao while "tao" is the reasons(道理) for the principles of Tao. ZuhangTze's tao was concerning with reasons, reasons within reason.

 

As I indicated before, I had no idea what ZZ was all about. I am learning from scratch as I had done in the past with the Tao Te Ching. That was why I'm so slow going into the discussions here. I know I must get a good grasp of the concepts in Chapters 1 and 2 before I go into other chapters.

 

I will follow the concepts of Chapters 1 and 2. The advices are to have a broad vision and look at both sides of the story from a distant perspective. By just looking at the characters and names to learn each chapter, indeed, it would be just like the narrow visions of the cicada and the little dove.

Edited November 1, 2011 by ChiDragon