Chuang Tzu Chapter 2, Section F

[Marblehead]

Section F

 

The Great Dao does not admit of being praised. The Great Argument does not require words. Great Benevolence is not (officiously) benevolent. Great Disinterestedness does not vaunt its humility. Great Courage is not seen in stubborn bravery. The Dao that is displayed is not the Dao. Words that are argumentative do not reach the point. Benevolence that is constantly exercised does not accomplish its object. Disinterestedness that vaunts its purity is not genuine. Courage that is most stubborn is ineffectual. These five seem to be round (and complete), but they tend to become square (and immovable). Therefore the knowledge that stops at what it does not know is the greatest. Who knows the argument that needs no words, and the Way that is not to be trodden? He who is able to know this has what is called 'The Heavenly Treasure-house.' He may pour into it without its being filled; he may pour from it without its being exhausted; and all the while he does not know whence (the supply) comes. This is what is called 'The Store of Light.' Therefore of old Yao asked Shun, saying, 'I wish to smite (the rulers of) Zong, Kuai, and Xu-Ao. Even when standing in my court, I cannot get them out of my mind. How is it so?' Shun replied, 'Those three rulers live (in their little states) as if they were among the mugwort and other brushwood - how is it that you cannot get them out of your mind? Formerly, ten suns came out together, and all things were illuminated by them; how much should (your) virtue exceed (all) suns!'

 

Nie Que asked Wang Ni, saying, 'Do you know, Sir, what all creatures agree in approving and affirming?' 'How should I know it?' was the reply. 'Do you know what it is that you do not know?' asked the other again, and he got the same reply. He asked a third time, 'Then are all creatures thus without knowledge?' and Wang Ni answered as before, (adding however), 'Notwithstanding, I will try and explain my meaning. How do you know that when I say "I know it," I really (am showing that) I do not know it, and that when I say "I do not know it," I really am showing that I do know it.' And let me ask you some questions: 'If a man sleep in a damp place, he will have a pain in his loins, and half his body will be as if it were dead; but will it be so with an eel? If he be living in a tree, he will be frightened and all in a tremble; but will it be so with a monkey? And does any one of the three know his right place ? Men eat animals that have been fed on grain and grass; deer feed on the thick-set grass; centipedes enjoy small snakes; owls and crows delight in mice; but does any one of the four know the right taste? The dog-headed monkey finds its mate in the female gibbon; the elk and the axis deer cohabit; and the eel enjoys itself with other fishes. Mao Qiang and Li Ji were accounted by men to be most beautiful, but when fishes saw them, they dived deep in the water from them; when birds, they flew from them aloft; and when deer saw them, they separated and fled away. But did any of these four know which in the world is the right female attraction? As I look at the matter, the first principles of benevolence and rightcousness and the paths of approval and disapproval are inextricably mixed and confused together - how is it possible that I should know how to discriminate among them?' Nie Que said (further), 'Since you, Sir, do not know what is advantageous and what is hurtful, is the Perfect man also in the same way without the knowledge of them?' Wang Ni replied, 'The Perfect man is spirit-like. Great lakes might be boiling about him, and he would not feel their heat; the Ho and the Han might be frozen tip, and he would not feel the cold; the hurrying thunderbolts might split the mountains, and the wind shake the ocean, without being able to make him afraid. Being such, he mounts on the clouds of the air, rides on the sun and moon, and rambles at ease beyond the four seas. Neither death nor life makes any change in him, and how much less should the considerations of advantage and injury do so!'

[konchog uma]

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

 

Long ago, Yao inquired of Shun, "Wishing to make a punitive

attack against Tsung, K'uai, and Hsŭ'ao, I sit on my throne

feeling all preoccupied. Why is this so?"

"The rulers of these three states," said Shun, "are still living

primitively amidst brambles and bushes. Why are you preoc-

cupied? Of old, ten suns appeared simultaneously, illuminating

the myriad things. How much more should a ruler like yourself,

whose virtue excels that of the sun, be able to tolerate other

rulers!"

 

Gnaw Gap inquired of Princely Scion, "Do you know wherein all

things agree?"

"How could I know that?"

"Do you know what you don't know?"

"How could I know that?"

"Well, then, is it possible to know anything at all?"

"How could I know that? Nonetheless, I'll try to say some -

thing about it. How can we know that what I call knowledge is

not really ignorance? How can we know that what I call igno-

rance is not really knowledge? But let me try to ask you a few

questions. If people sleep in damp places, they develop lumbago

or even partial paralysis. But would the same thing happen if a

loach did so? If people dwell in trees, they will tremble with

vertigo. But would the same thing happen if a gibbon did so? Of

these three, which knows the proper place to dwell? People eat

meat, deer eat grass, giant centipedes savor snakes, hawks and

crows relish mice. Of these four, which knows the proper food to

eat? Gibbons go for gibbons, buck mates with doe, loaches

cavort with fish. Mao Ch'iang and Hsi Shih were considered by

men to be beautiful, but if fish took one look at them they would

dive into the depths, if birds saw them they would fly high into

the sky, if deer saw them they would run away pell-mell. Of these

four, which knows the correct standard of beauty for all under

heaven? As I see it, the principle of humaneness and righteous-

ness, the paths of right and wrong, are inextricably confused.

How would I be able to distinguish among them?"

"If you" asked Gnaw Gap, "do not know the difference

between benefit and harm, does the ultimate man likewise not

know the difference between them?"

"The ultimate man is spiritous," said Princely Scion. "If the

great marshes were set on fire, he would not feel hot. If the rivers

turned to ice, he would not feel cold. If violent thunder split the

mountains, he would not be injured. If whirlwinds lashed the

seas, he would not be frightened. Such being the case, he rides

the clouds, mounts the sun and moon, and wanders beyond the

four seas. Since not even life and death have any transforming

effect upon him, how much less do benefit and harm?"

[XieJia]

known is the unknowing.

unknown is the unknowing.

knowing is knowing the unknowing.

knowing is this unknowing knowing itself.

 

-Anonymous

 

Edited October 29, 2011 by XieJia

[Harmonious Emptiness]

If people dwell in trees, they will tremble with

vertigo. But would the same thing happen if a gibbon did so? Of

these three, which knows the proper place to dwell? People eat

meat, deer eat grass, giant centipedes savor snakes, hawks and

crows relish mice. Of these four, which knows the proper food to

eat? Gibbons go for gibbons, buck mates with doe, loaches

cavort with fish.

 

This to me is a great illustration of meditation-mind. Thought does not perceive, and so thought does not know. Thought only thinks; it doesn't know.

[Marblehead]

This to me is a great illustration of meditation-mind. Thought does not perceive, and so thought does not know. Thought only thinks; it doesn't know.

 

I like the way you said that even though I had to read it twice before realizing I like it. Hehehe.

[dawei]

When Descartes said, "I think therefore I am"... the existentialist Sartre rightly improved on it as: "I think therefore I am a thinking thing"... but this is not about either, IMO... it is regurgitating the same message over and over; If you distinguish this or that, you place boundaries on it. (Dao has no concept of this or that and therefore has not boundary). ZZ then subtlety mocks the Confucian ideas of Ren and Yi as confused (without true discrimination) and then moves outside of philosophical ideas of riding on the Qi of clouds... so that is where we cannot talk anymore

[XieJia]

David;

 

Similar case is apply between the conversation between Huizi and Zhuangzi right?

[lienshan]

I've spent some time in section G exploring the 'Qu Quezi asked Chang Wuzi' story.

There are different scholarly opinions to where the last part of that story belongs?

My opinion is, that it belongs here being the last part of the 'Nie Que asked Wang Ni' story:

 

Since you made me enter into this discussion with you, if you have got the better of me and not I of you, are you indeed right, and I indeed wrong? If I have got the better of you and not you of me, am I indeed right and you indeed wrong? Is the one of us right and the other wrong? are we both right or both wrong? Since we cannot come to a mutual and common understanding, men will certainly continue in darkness on the subject. Whom shall I employ to adjudicate in the matter? If I employ one who agrees with you, how can he, agreeing with you, do so correctly? And the same may be said, if I employ one who agrees with me. It will be the same if I employ one who differs from us both or one who agrees with us both. In this way I and you and those others would all not be able to come to a mutual understanding; and shall we then wait for that (great sage)? (We need not do so.) To wait on others to learn how conflicting opinions are changed is simply like not so waiting at all. The harmonising of them is to be found in the invisible operation of Heaven, and by following this on into the unlimited past. It is by this method that we can complete our years (without our minds being disturbed). What is meant by harmonising (conflicting opinions) in the invisible operation of Heaven? There is the affirmation and the denial of it; and there is the assertion of an opinion and the rejection of it. If the affirmation be according to the reality of the fact, it is certainly different from the denial of it - there can be no dispute about that. If the assertion of an opinion be correct, it is certainly different from its rejection - neither can there be any dispute about that. Let us forget the lapse of time; let us forget the conflict of opinions. Let us make our appeal to the Infinite, and take up our position there.'

[Rara]

Ok it took me forever to find this! Seems that your version not only reads completely different to mine, but it's structured differently too.

 

Where this passage begins, it is half way through a section in my version!

 

Nevermind though...I just swung by to give my thoughts on re reading this chapter. Seems that entering into debates is a pointless exercise as it is exhausting...for the sage just "does" and doesn't concern himself with taking sides. Did anybody else get this?

Edited April 27, 2015 by Rara

[Marblehead]

Ok it took me forever to find this! Seems that your version not only reads completely different to mine, but it's structured differently too.

 

Where this passage begins, it is half way through a section in my version!

Yes, the translations of Chuang Tzu vary even more than do the translations of Lao Tzu.

 

But then, we see different perspectives and that allows us to ask ourself (can't ask the translator) questions.

 

Nevermind though...I just swung by to give my thoughts on re reading this chapter. Seems that entering into debates is a pointless exercise as it is exhausting...for the sage just "does" and doesn't concern himself with taking sides. Did anybody else get this?

That's pretty much it, bottom line.  The nature of the universe is what it is.  The differences are between man and his understanding of the universe.  To argue whether the Earth goes around the sun of if the sun goes around Earth makes no difference whatever and it really doesn't matter who is "right" or if both are actually "wrong" because nature will continue to be what it is.

 

There really aren't all that many things in life worthy of arguing about.  (But I enjoy arguing.  Hehehe.)

[Rara]

Yes, the translations of Chuang Tzu vary even more than do the translations of Lao Tzu.

 

But then, we see different perspectives and that allows us to ask ourself (can't ask the translator) questions.

 

That's pretty much it, bottom line. The nature of the universe is what it is. The differences are between man and his understanding of the universe. To argue whether the Earth goes around the sun of if the sun goes around Earth makes no difference whatever and it really doesn't matter who is "right" or if both are actually "wrong" because nature will continue to be what it is.

 

There really aren't all that many things in life worthy of arguing about. (But I enjoy arguing. Hehehe.)

What about the scientists that now know the earth orbits the sun?

[dust]

 

[Marblehead]

What about the scientists that now know the earth orbits the sun?

Hehehe.  They might be lost too.

[Rara]

Ah! Something like this, also?

 

 

Art, science, or anything - it is what it is...and we can all have our preferences and "expert ways", but in the grand scheme of things, these are not as important as we make them out to be. Then there is the latter part of the moral...it is not the activity, it is the person that is doing the activity

 

Back to this chapter - once we have stopped thinking, procrastinating, justifying - all that is left is our true nature? And therefore, no words or justification is required?

 

I'm starting to feel that the answer to my "moral" questions, doesn't lie in any argument on this forum (i.e should I or shouldn't I behave a certain way) because (and MH you will like this next part) everything is subjective anyway so we will only bat for the team that we want to bat for...

Edited April 29, 2015 by Rara

[dust]

Ooh, Jet. Nice.

 

 

Do you have 'moral' questions?

Edited April 29, 2015 by dustybeijing

[Marblehead]

The video is not available in my country.

Back to this chapter - once we have stopped thinking, procrastinating, justifying - all that is left is our true nature? And therefore, no words or justification is required

I have realized that over the past few years I do not respond to questions asked of me that I thought should not have been asked.  Yes, I ignore the questions.  Rude?  Sure.  Old men get that way.  If what we have done effects no one else there is no need for justification, IMO.

 

I'm starting to feel that the answer to my "moral" questions, doesn't lie in any argument on this forum (i.e should I or shouldn't I behave a certain way) because (and MH you will like this next part) everything is subjective anyway so we will only bat for the team that we want to bat for...

Moral?  Look at the activities in raw nature.  Where do you see any morals?  There are none.  Everything is objective.  And yes, I liked the way you worked that paragraph.

[Rara]

Oh look, I am on a computer so can multi-quote for once!

 

Ooh, Jet. Nice.

 

 

Do you have 'moral' questions?

 

I have watched three Jet Li films this month. I think he has the best martial arts films just because they are all so interesting, conceptually speaking.

 

Yes, I am always in the vegetarian vs omnivore argument in my own head...but more I realise that it is more the fact that I just don't want to, rather than to join a movement which has "reasons"

 

As well, the other day...I was stuck trying to find food in the supermarket because I'm trying to avoid palm oil as its production is endangering the ourang outang even more.

 

The video is not available in my country.

I have realized that over the past few years I do not respond to questions asked of me that I thought should not have been asked.  Yes, I ignore the questions.  Rude?  Sure.  Old men get that way.  If what we have done effects no one else there is no need for justification, IMO.

 

Moral?  Look at the activities in raw nature.  Where do you see any morals?  There are none.  Everything is objective.  And yes, I liked the way you worked that paragraph.

 

Oh no! Youtube "Fearless Tea Scene" and see if you get anything. Yes, I have been watching you very closely...mainly because a lot of people on the forum are into semen retention...you like short skirts and bikinis So I click more with the "beast" type haha.

 

It makes me wonder why there are temples for Taoism. I think I've said this before but I'm pretty sure Zhuangzi would see this as missing the point entirely.

 

No I don't see "morals" in nature. Some argue that because we are human and we can distinguish between good and bad morals, we should use this. Again, repeating what I have said before - if one commits murder, the universal "opinion" is that they should be punished, because it is a bad thing. I think you would agree with this...

 

But what is Zhuangzi saying? That by being closer to our nature, we won't do anything "bad" anyway? As opposed to the Confucian or Moses/God 10 commandments style "don't do this because I said so"...?

Edited April 29, 2015 by Rara

[dust]

As well, the other day...I was stuck trying to find food in the supermarket because I'm trying to avoid palm oil as its production is endangering the ourang outang even more.

 

Ah I see what you mean. No, Taoism probably won't help with specific 'right/wrong?' decisions.

 

Obviously I have the same kind of questions (just bought myself 2kg of Meridian peanut butter from Holland & Barrett -- 100% peanuts!) but I think that acting in a 'Taoist' way about this kind of thing simply means going with your gut.

 

Problems like species endangerment occur when people don't act in a holistic, intuitive way. When we become so removed from our environment that we don't even know how things like cocoa and peanuts are grown, or what they look like fresh, or what's being done in order to provide them for us. Maybe..?

 

 

It makes me wonder why there are temples for Taoism. I think I've said this before but I'm pretty sure Zhuangzi would see this as missing the point entirely.

 

Yeah I've never really understood it.

[Marblehead]

 

Oh no! Youtube "Fearless Tea Scene" and see if you get anything. Yes, I have been watching you very closely...mainly because a lot of people on the forum are into semen retention...you like short skirts and bikinis So I click more with the "beast" type haha.

I never did any retentioning when I was younger.  I think I ran out.

 

Yeah, look at me and you can imagine what a Neanderthal looked like.

 

It makes me wonder why there are temples for Taoism. I think I've said this before but I'm pretty sure Zhuangzi would see this as missing the point entirely.

The temples are mostly the Buddhist infusion.  But then, they likely would have become a part of Religious Taoism anyhow.

 

And I agree, Chuang Tzu would have thought that they missed the point.

 

No I don't see "morals" in nature. Some argue that because we are human and we can distinguish between good and bad morals, we should use this. Again, repeating what I have said before - if one commits murder, the universal "opinion" is that they should be punished, because it is a bad thing. I think you would agree with this...

Hehehe.  Trying to get me to speak to a moral question, are you?  Some people would consider killing someone while defending yourself murder.  In such a case I think the murder was good.

 

 

But what is Zhuangzi saying? That by being closer to our nature, we won't do anything "bad" anyway? As opposed to the Confucian or Moses/God 10 commandments style "don't do this because I said so"...?

Second sentence/question is poorly asked.  Remember, Chuang Tzu oftentimes spoke from a position beyond "good/bad".  So, it is more at we would not do anything that was against the natural flow of nature.  This again returns us to the differences almost always found between the subjective and the objective.  The objective simply is; the subjective gets judged by someone.

[Rara]

Ah I see what you mean. No, Taoism probably won't help with specific 'right/wrong?' decisions.

 

Obviously I have the same kind of questions (just bought myself 2kg of Meridian peanut butter from Holland & Barrett -- 100% peanuts!) but I think that acting in a 'Taoist' way about this kind of thing simply means going with your gut.

 

Problems like species endangerment occur when people don't act in a holistic, intuitive way. When we become so removed from our environment that we don't even know how things like cocoa and peanuts are grown, or what they look like fresh, or what's being done in order to provide them for us. Maybe..?

 

 

 

Yeah I've never really understood it.

You know, Sun Pat peanut butter is close...might be friendlier on the wallet

 

Generally though, yes, seems that we are on the same page here.

[Rara]

I never did any retentioning when I was younger. I think I ran out.

 

Yeah, look at me and you can imagine what a Neanderthal looked like.

 

The temples are mostly the Buddhist infusion. But then, they likely would have become a part of Religious Taoism anyhow.

 

And I agree, Chuang Tzu would have thought that they missed the point.

 

Hehehe. Trying to get me to speak to a moral question, are you? Some people would consider killing someone while defending yourself murder. In such a case I think the murder was good.

 

 

Second sentence/question is poorly asked. Remember, Chuang Tzu oftentimes spoke from a position beyond "good/bad". So, it is more at we would not do anything that was against the natural flow of nature. This again returns us to the differences almost always found between the subjective and the objective. The objective simply is; the subjective gets judged by someone.

On phone...can't multi quote.

 

Well, one day I will have to see a pic of you, neanderthal man!

 

On the murder subject, we've had this discussion before. In self defence, sure...I get that. What I meant was the "unjustified" murder which we would all agree would warrant some form of punishment (so, therefore, deeming it "bad")

 

But sure, "beyond good and bad" I often hear and then dismiss as a bunch of pretentious words. Or maybe I haven't meditated enough...following my revisit to this chapter and meditations, this is starting to become clearer.

 

I guess I just gotta keep going to feel this. Hmmmmm....I will report back one day.

Edited April 29, 2015 by Rara

[Marblehead]

On phone...can't multi quote.

 

Well, one day I will have to see a pic of you, neanderthal man!

One picture would speak a million words.  Hehehe.

 

On the murder subject, we've had this discussion before. In self defence, sure...I get that. What I meant was the "unjustified" murder which we would all agree would warrant some form of punishment (so, therefore, deeming it "bad")

Yeah, I know.  But I like to keep in mind that there are no absolutes.  Conditions vary and this will dictate how we act and react.

 

But sure, "beyond good and bad" I often hear and then dismiss as a bunch of pretentious words. Or maybe I haven't meditated enough...following my revisit to this chapter and meditations, this is starting to become clearer.

 

I guess I just gotta keep going to feel this. Hmmmmm....I will report back one day.

Well, don't feel bad.  That is a tough one to comprehend.  The concept was initially introduced to me by Nietzsche with his "Beyond good and evil."

 

But then Chuang Tzu does a really great job with the concept as well.  (Nietzsche never offered us a conclusion.)  (And actually, Albert Camus works with the concept but rather indirectly.)

 

Enjoy working with the concept.

[Rara]

 

Well, don't feel bad. That is a tough one to comprehend. The concept was initially introduced to me by Nietzsche with his "Beyond good and evil."

 

But then Chuang Tzu does a really great job with the concept as well. (Nietzsche never offered us a conclusion.) (And actually, Albert Camus works with the concept but rather indirectly.)

 

Enjoy working with the concept.

Oh, of course. I meant I will "feel" this "beyond" good and bad.

 

I suppose the whole "objective" non-judging of thoughts in meditation is the practice...

[Marblehead]

 

I suppose the whole "objective" non-judging of thoughts in meditation is the practice...

Yes, I would think that this would be a good beginning.