Chuang Tzu Chapter 2, Section E

[Marblehead]

Section E

 

Among the men of old their knowledge reached the extreme point. What was that extreme point? Some held that at first there was not anything. This is the extreme point, the utmost point to which nothing can be added. A second class held that there was something, but without any responsive recognition of it (on the part of men). A third class held that there was such recognition, but there had not begun to be any expression of different opinions about it. It was through the definite expression of different opinions about it that there ensued injury to (the doctrine of) the Dao. It was this injury to the (doctrine of the) Dao which led to the formation of (partial) preferences. Was it indeed after such preferences were formed that the injury came? or did the injury precede the rise of such preferences? If the injury arose after their formation, Zhao's method of playing on the lute was natural. If the injury arose before their formation, there would have been no such playing on the lute as Zhao's. Zhao Wen's playing on the lute, Shi Kuang's indicating time with his staff, and Huizi's (giving his views), while leaning against a dryandra tree (were all extraordinary). The knowledge of the three men (in their several arts) was nearly perfect, and therefore they practised them to the end of their lives. They loved them because they were different from those of others. They loved them and wished to make them known to others. But as they could not be made clear, though they tried to make them so, they ended with the obscure (discussions) about 'the hard' and 'the white.' And their sons, moreover, with all the threads of their fathers' compositions, yet to the end of their lives accomplished nothing. If they, proceeding in this way, could be said to have succeeded, then am I also successful; if they cannot be pronounced successful, neither I nor any other can succeed. Therefore the scintillations of light from the midst of confusion and perplexity are indeed valued by the sagely man; but not to use one's own views and to take his position on the ordinary views is what is called using the (proper) light.

 

But here now are some other sayings - I do not know whether they are of the same character as those which I have already given, or of a different character. Whether they be of the same character or not when looked at along with them, they have a character of their own, which cannot be distinguished from the others. But though this be the case, let me try to explain myself. There was a beginning. There was a beginning before that beginning. There was a beginning previous to that beginning before there was the beginning. There was existence; there had been no existence. There was no existence before the beginning of that no existence. There was no existence previous to the no existence before there was the beginning of the no existence. If suddenly there was nonexistence, we do not know whether it was really anything existing, or really not existing. Now I have said what I have said, but I do not know whether what I have said be really anything to the point or not.

 

Under heaven there is nothing greater than the tip of an autumn down, and the Tai mountain is small. There is no one more long-lived than a child which dies prematurely, and Peng Zu did not live out his time. Heaven, Earth, and I were produced together, and all things and I are one. Since they are one, can there be speech about them? But since they are spoken of as one, must there not be room for speech? One and Speech are two; two and one are three. Going on from this (in our enumeration), the most skilful reckoner cannot reach (the end of the necessary numbers), and how much less can ordinary people do so! Therefore from non-existence we proceed to existence till we arrive at three; proceeding from existence to existence, to how many should we reach? Let us abjure such procedure, and simply rest here.

 

The Dao at first met with no responsive recognition. Speech at first had no constant forms of expression. Because of this there came the demarcations (of different views). Let me describe those demarcations: they are the Left and the Right; the Relations and their Obligations; Classifications and their Distinctions; Emulations and Contentions. These are what are called 'the Eight Qualities.' Outside the limits of the world of men, the sage occupies his thoughts, but does not discuss about anything; inside those limits he occupies his thoughts, but does not pass any judgments. In the Chun Qiu, which embraces the history of the former kings, the sage indicates his judgments, but does not argue (in vindication of them). Thus it is that he separates his characters from one another without appearing to do so, and argues without the form of argument. How does he do so? The sage cherishes his views in his own breast, while men generally state theirs argumentatively, to show them to others. Hence we have the saying, 'Disputation is a proof of not seeing clearly.'

[konchog uma]

disputation is proof of not seeing clearly

 

i wish i could remember that all the time, those are words to live by

[konchog uma]

ye olde Victor Mair

 

The knowledge of the ancients attained the ultimate. What was

the ultimacy that it attained? They realized that there was a stage

before there were things. This is the ultimacy they had attained,

the utmost to which nothing can be added. Next, there were

those who recognized that there were things, but that there was a

stage before which things were distinguished. Next, there were

those who recognized that there were distinctions among things,

but that there was a stage before there was right and wrong. Now,

the manifestation of right and wrong is what diminishes the

Way. What causes the diminution is what leads to the creation

of preferences. But, after all, are there really diminution and

creation? Or are there, after all, really no diminution and cre-

ation? That there are diminution and creation may be seen from

clansman Chao's playing the lute . That there are no diminution

and creation may be seen from clansman Chao's not playing the

lute. Chao Wen played the lute, Maestro K'uang beat the rhythm

with a stick, and Master Hui commented philosophically be-

neath a parasol tree. The knowledge of these three masters was

virtually complete, so they practiced it till the end of their lives.

However, they believed that they were different from others in

what they were fond of and wished to enlighten others about

their fondness. Yet, try as they may to enlighten them, others

were not to be enlightened. Thus one of them ended his life in

muddleheaded discussions of "hard" and "white." And Chao

Wen's son carried on his father's career his whole life without any

accomplishment. If this can be called accomplishment even I,

who am without accomplishment, can be called accomplished.

But if this cannot be called accomplishment, neither I nor

anything else is accomplished. Therefore, the sage endeavors to

get rid of bewildering flamboyance. For this reason, he does not

use things himself, but lodges in commonality. This is called

"using lucidity."

 

Now I have something to say here. I do not know whether or not

what I have to say is of the same category as "this." But, whether

it is of the same category or not, like them it is a category, thus in

the end it is no different from "that." Nevertheless, let me try to

explain myself.

There is beginning. There is a time before beginning. There

is a time before the time before beginning. There is being. There

is nonbeing. There is a stage before nonbeing. There is a stage

before the stage before nonbeing. Suddenly there is being and

nonbeing. Still, as for being and nonbeing, I do not know which

is really being and which is nonbeing. Now I have just said

something, but I do not know whether what I have said is really

saying something or not.

There is nothing under heaven larger than the tip of a downy

hair at the end of autumn, but Mount T'ai is small. There is no

greater longevity than that of a child who dies in infancy, but

Progenitor P'eng died young. Heaven and earth were born

together with me and the myriad things are one with me. Since

all things are one, how can there be anything to talk about? But

since I have already said that all things are one, how can there be

nothing to talk about? One and speech makes two, two and one

makes three. Continuing on in this fashion, even the cleverest

mathematician couldn't keep up, how much less an ordinary

person! Therefore, if in proceeding from nonbeing to being we

arrive at three, how much farther we shall reach when proceeding

from being to being. We need not proceed at all if we understand

the mutual dependence of "this" and "that."

 

The Way has never been divided up, speech has never been

constant. It's all because of "this" that there are demarcations.

Let me explain what I mean by demarcations . There are left and

right, discussions and deliberations, analyses and disputes, argu-

ments and altercations . These are the eight types of demarcative

assertions . The sages set aside without discussion what lies

beyond the world. The sages discuss what lies within the world,

but do not deliberate upon it . As for annals and other records of

the statesmanship of the former kings, the sages deliberate over

them but will not dispute about them . Therefore, wherever there

is analysis, something is left unanalyzed. Wherever there is

dispute, something is left undisputed . You may ask, "How can

this be?" The sages embrace all things, but ordinary people

dispute over them to show off to each other. Therefore it is said,

wherever there is dispute, something is left unseen.

The great Way is ineffable, great disputation is speechless,

great humaneness is inhumane, great honesty is immodest, and

great bravery is not aggressive. The way that displays itself is not

the Way. Speech that is disputatious fails to achieve its aims.

Humaneness that is constant cannot go around . Honesty that is

aloof will not be trusted. Bravery that is aggressive will not

succeed. One who does not abandon these five precepts will be

more or less headed in the right direction.

Therefore, she who knows to stop at what she does not

know has attained the ultimate . Who knows the disputation that

is without words and the Way that cannot be walked upon? If

one can have knowledge of them, this is called the Treasury of

Heaven. You may pour into it, but it never fills ; you may dip

from it, but it never empties; and you never know where it comes

from. This is called the Inner Light.

[Marblehead]

disputation is proof of not seeing clearly

 

i wish i could remember that all the time, those are words to live by

 

I agree with your first statement.

 

Agree with the second half of your second statement.

 

But Ah!, the first half of your second statement! Should we even try? I ask this because I think it is important that we remain true to our natural Self.

 

If we have a strong belief we are going to defend that belief. This is natural. To have no beliefs, I think, is pretty close to impossible.

 

I forget the exact words of the quote and who said it but it goes something like, "If we do not stand up for what is right we are will to accept anything that is wrong."

 

Yes, we do make judgement calls in life. Just the way it is. Once judged, if we do not follow through on our judgements with actions then we are willing to accept anything in life. Personally, I don't like people messing with me and I simply do not tolerate it. If I cannot remove them from my life then I will remove myself from their life.

[Marblehead]

Hehehe. I like the way Mair snuck in that last paragraph. (Or you did. Hehehe.)

 

But a very, very important none-the-less. On knowing when to stop!

[konchog uma]

Hehehe. I like the way Mair snuck in that last paragraph. (Or you did. Hehehe.)

 

But a very, very important none-the-less. On knowing when to stop!

 

hahaha i did not edit any of these, except to correct extra spaces and take out page numbers, since i am cutting and pasting from a PDF version of the book

 

i would not do such a thing sir! His translation is just a little different than Legge's in this chapter

[konchog uma]

i think what Chuang Tzu is saying about right and wrong being secondary or diminishing the way is interesting. That kind of philosophy has long been taken by fools as an excuse to be immoral, but i think what CT is getting at is a kind of amorality, or something based on spontaneity.

 

It reminds me of the story of the farmboy who broke his leg and his family was sad, then war was declared but since his leg was broke he wasnt drafted, so his family was happy, and the good/bad thing goes on for a while. I don't know a link to the story or who wrote it, but i'm pretty sure its Chinese.

 

ultimately, i like the way the verses build on each other, so that each one can be taken as is, but also, the entire book seems to develop the concepts of 'this' and 'that' being, in the end, expressions of the same thing.

 

As the book goes on, the writers seem to get more wordy.

[Marblehead]

hahaha i did not edit any of these, except to correct extra spaces and take out page numbers, since i am cutting and pasting from a PDF version of the book

 

i would not do such a thing sir! His translation is just a little different than Legge's in this chapter

 

Hehehe. Only messing with you. All translations are different. I know that. All things considered I think you are doing very well.

[Marblehead]

i think what Chuang Tzu is saying about right and wrong being secondary or diminishing the way is interesting. That kind of philosophy has long been taken by fools as an excuse to be immoral, but i think what CT is getting at is a kind of amorality, or something based on spontaneity.

 

Yep. I think this is very consistent with Nietzsche's concept of "beyond good and evil". A good person will always do the "right" thing even though some may thing s/he did the wrong thing.

 

It reminds me of the story of the farmboy who broke his leg and his family was sad, then war was declared but since his leg was broke he wasnt drafted, so his family was happy, and the good/bad thing goes on for a while. I don't know a link to the story or who wrote it, but i'm pretty sure its Chinese.

 

Yep. That is normally called the "Fortunate/Unfortunate" story. It is Chinese but it is also found in many different cultures. I did a search on it once but forgot the results. Hehehe.

 

ultimately, i like the way the verses build on each other, so that each one can be taken as is, but also, the entire book seems to develop the concepts of 'this' and 'that' being, in the end, expressions of the same thing.

 

Agree. Of course, there are more stoies later because Chuang Tzu apparently enjoyed making up stories to be used as a base for discussing a concept. There are more stories later but Like I mentioned, those first four sections were stories used as a base for what is currently being discussed.

 

We do need to watch for when he is telling us a story so we don't take the make-believe to be reality. People don't really ride on clouds, you know.

[XieJia]

Come In! Come In!

4 for 3 fake Rolexes!

(silence is golden)

 

Get Out!

 

 

There are times before Rolexes are, times before fakes Rolexes.

There are no beyond Rolexes and fake Rolexes.

There are just no Rolexes and hence how could it be fake?

[Marblehead]

The only response that came to mind is: "Buyer Beware!"

[dawei]

It is not about the buyer's nor the inventor's side ; It is NOT this and it is NOT that. If you pick a side then you fall into boundaries. There is no "rolodex" since it is just a 'name'... sometimes discussions fall into boundaries of what can be said or not said, and then we can know there is no seeing clearly even though the boundary is set fast in front of everyone else's eyes

[Harmonious Emptiness]

It is not about the buyer's nor the inventor's side ; It is NOT this and it is NOT that. If you pick a side then you fall into boundaries. There is no "rolodex" since it is just a 'name'... sometimes discussions fall into boundaries of what can be said or not said, and then we can know there is no seeing clearly even though the boundary is set fast in front of everyone else's eyes

 

This, to me, is why meditation is so beneficial for anyone and everyone: it clears all those pre-judgements and and present judgements so that they can see for themselves. I was thinking the other day how thoughts and ideas affect people the same as illnesses. We catch colds from people who sneeze on us, but when we are around ideas about people and life for a long time, they can infect us just the same if we don't have a strong immunity to them. Meditation is the anti-virus that cleans our senses, sort of cleans the mess or the coloured tinge off the windshield, readjusts the mirrors, and allows us to make our own assessments or to to not make any assessment at all, and allows us sometimes not to need an assessment, just to experience.. whatever it is