Chuang Tzu Chapter 4, Section A

[Marblehead]

Section A

 

Yan Hui went to see Zhongni, and asked leave to take his departure. 'Where are you going to?' asked the Master. 'I will go to Wei' was the reply. 'And with what object?' 'I have heard that the ruler of Wei is in the vigour of his years, and consults none but himself as to his course. He deals with his state as if it were a light matter, and has no perception of his errors. He thinks lightly of his people's dying; the dead are lying all over the country as if no smaller space could contain them; on the plains and about the marshes, they are as thick as heaps of fuel. The people know not where to turn to. I have heard you, Master, say, "Leave the state that is well governed; go to the state where disorder prevails." At the door of a physician there are many who are ill. I wish through what I have heard (from you) to think out some methods (of dealing with Wei), if peradventure the evils of the state may be cured.'

 

Zhongni said, 'Alas! The risk is that you will go only to suffer in the punishment (of yourself)! The right method (in such a case) will not admit of any admixture. With such admixture, the one method will become many methods. Their multiplication will embarrass you. That embarrassment will make you anxious. However anxious you may be, you will not save (yourself). The perfect men of old first had (what they wanted to do) in themselves, and afterwards they found (the response to it) in others. If what they wanted in themselves was not fixed, what leisure had they to go and interfere with the proceedings of any tyrannous man?

 

Moreover, do you know how virtue is liable to be dissipated, and how wisdom proceeds to display itself? Virtue is dissipated in (the pursuit of) the name for it, and wisdom seeks to display itself in the striving with others. In the pursuit of the name men overthrow one another; wisdom becomes a weapon of contention. Both these things are instruments of evil, and should not be allowed to have free course in one's conduct. Supposing one's virtue to be great and his sincerity firm, if he do not comprehend the spirit of those (whom he wishes to influence); and supposing he is free from the disposition to strive for reputation, if he do not comprehend their minds;-- when in such a case he forcibly insists on benevolence and righteousness, setting them forth in the strongest and most direct language, before the tyrant, then he, hating (his reprover's) possession of those excellences, will put him down as doing him injury. He who injures others is sure to be injured by them in return. You indeed will hardly escape being injured by the man (to whom you go)!

 

Further, if perchance he takes pleasure in men of worth and hates those of an opposite character, what is the use of your seeking to make yourself out to be different (from such men about him)? Before you have begun to announce (your views), he, as king and ruler, will take advantage of you, and immediately contend with you for victory. Your eyes will be dazed and full of perplexity; you will try to look pleased with him; you will frame your words with care; your demeanour will be conformed to his; you will confirm him in his views. In this way you will be adding fire to fire, and water to water, increasing, as we may express it, the evils (which you deplore). To these signs of deferring to him at the first there will be no end. You will be in danger, seeing he does not believe you, of making your words more strong, and you are sure to die at the hands of such a tyrant.

 

And formerly Jie killed Guan Long-feng, and Zhou killed the prince Bi-gan. Both of these cultivated their persons, bending down in sympathy with the lower people to comfort them suffering (as they did) from their oppressors, and on their account opposing their superiors. On this account, because they so ordered their conduct, their rulers compassed their destruction - such regard had they for their own fame. (Again), Yao anciently attacked (the states of) Cong-qi and Xu-ao, and Yu attacked the ruler of Hu. Those states were left empty, and with no one to continue their population, the people being exterminated. They had engaged in war without ceasing; their craving for whatever they could get was insatiable. And this (ruler of Wei) is, like them, one who craves after fame and greater substance - have you not heard it? Those sages were not able to overcome the thirst for fame and substance - how much less will you be able to do so! Nevertheless you must have some ground (for the course which you wish to take); pray try and tell it to me.'

 

Yan Hui said, 'May I go, doing so in uprightness and humility, using also every endeavour to be uniform (in my plans of operation)?' 'No, indeed!' was the reply. 'How can you do so? This man makes a display of being filled to overflowing (with virtue), and has great self-conceit. His feelings are not to be determined from his countenance. Ordinary men do not (venture to) oppose him, and he proceeds from the way in which he affects them to seek still more the satisfaction of his own mind. He may be described as unaffected by the (small lessons of) virtue brought to bear on him from day to day; and how much less will he be so by your great lessons? He will be obstinate, and refuse to be converted. He may outwardly agree with you, but inwardly there will be no self-condemnation - how can you (go to him in this way and be successful)?'

 

(Yan Hui) rejoined, 'Well then; while inwardly maintaining my straightforward intention, I will outwardly seem to bend to him. I will deliver (my lessons), and substantiate them by appealing to antiquity. Inwardly maintaining my straightforward intention, I shall be a co-worker with Heaven. When I thus speak of being a co-worker with Heaven, it is because I know that (the sovereign, whom we style) the son of Heaven, and myself, are equally regarded by Heaven as Its sons. And should I then, as if my words were only my own, be seeking to find whether men approved of them, or disapproved of them? In this way men will pronounce me a (sincere and simple) boy. This is what is called being a co-worker with Heaven. Outwardly bending (to the ruler), I shall be a co-worker with other men. To carry (the memorandum tablet to court), to kneel, and to bend the body reverentially - these are the observances of ministers. They all employ them, and should I presume not to do so? Doing what other men do, they would have no occasion to blame me. This is what is called being a fellow-worker with other men. Fully declaring my sentiments and substantiating them by appealing to antiquity, I shall be a co-worker with the ancients. Although the words in which I convey my lessons may really be condemnatory (of the ruler), they will be those of antiquity, and not my own. In this way, though straightforward, I shall be free from blame. This is what is called being a co-worker with antiquity. May I go to Wei in this way, and be successful?' 'No indeed!' said Zhongni. 'How can you do so? You have too many plans of proceeding, and have not spied out (the ruler's character). Though you firmly adhere to your plans, you may be held free from transgression, but this will be all the result. How can you (in this way) produce the transformation (which you desire)? All this only shows (in you) the mind of a teacher!'

[Marblehead]

Yeah, I know, long story. But it would not have been right to chop it into pieces.

[konchog uma]

Yeah, I know, long story. But it would not have been right to chop it into pieces.

 

yikes. I'll post the Mair soon. Dinner sooner

[ChiDragon]

[konchog uma]

[konchog uma]

well thats really wordy, and there are a couple great gems in there about how to deal with tyrants, but i think that in the end what he is saying is that if you want to return things to natural harmony, you can't use human endeavor or effort of that kind. You have to forget the machinations of the mind and dwell within in no-place and let the subtle influence of that spread naturally. Neat concept but I'm a little intimidated by the amount of verbage it took to convey all that. How different from chapter 1

[ChiDragon]

Yen Hui went to see Confucius and requested permission to take

a trip.

"Where are you going?" asked Confucius.

"I'm going to the state of Wey.

""What will you do there?"

"I have heard that the Lord of Wey is behaving dictatorially

in the vigor of his youth. He is frivolous in exercising his state

prerogatives and is blind to his own faults . He looks lightly upon

the death of his people, and those who die for the state fill the

swamps like so many withered weeds. The people have no place

to turn. Master, I have heard you say that one may leave a well-

ordered state and go to one that is in chaos. 'There are many sick

people at the gate of a physician.' In conformity with what you

told me, I wish to think of a plan whereby perhaps I may cure the

sickness of the state of Wey"

 

It seems to me that Victor Mair's translation is close and simple. I would like to use it just to point out some minor discrepancies.

 

"Yen Hui went to see Confucius and requested permission to take a trip."

Actually, Yen Hui went to see Confucius for his farewell for his departure to the State of Wei.

 

The theme of the parable:

If one is young and with power, mostly lightly he didn't know better nor how to handle matters in his present environment. Thus it's advisable not to give too much power to a young person in the vigour of his years.

[Marblehead]

Neat concept but I'm a little intimidated by the amount of verbage it took to convey all that. How different from chapter 1

 

Yeah. There is another story later that I think presents the concept much better.

 

And I agree, it is rather wordy for the concept being presented. But then, getting that deep into it may have been useful during Chuang Tzu's time.

[XieJia]

what is

is not

[ChiDragon]

仲尼曰：「譆，若殆往而刑耳！夫道不欲雜，雜則多，多則擾，擾則憂，憂而不救。

"Alas," said Confucius, "I'm afraid you'll end up in trouble if

you go there. The Way should not be adulterated. Adulteration

leads to multiplicity, multiplicity to confusion, confusion to

worry. When one is worried, one cannot be saved.

 

古之至人，先存諸己而后存諸人。所存於己者未定，何暇至於暴人之所行！

The ultimate men of the past first sought to preserve it in themselves and only

after that to preserve it in others. Before one has settled what one

seeks to preserve in oneself, where is there any leisure to attend to

the behavior of a tyrant?

 

且若亦知夫德之所蕩而知之所為出乎哉？德蕩乎名，知出乎爭。名也者，相軋也﹔知也者，爭之器也。二者凶器， 非所以盡行也。

"Furthermore, do you know wherein integrity is dissipated

and wherein knowledge is elicited? Integrity is dissipated

through fame and knowledge is elicited by contention. Fame

implies mutual conflict; knowledge is an instrument of conten-

tion. Both are instruments of evil and not something for which

one should strive.

 

 

且德厚信矼，未達人氣﹔名聞不爭，未達人心。而強以仁義繩墨之言衒暴人之前者，是以人惡有其美也，命之曰菑人。菑人者，人必反菑之。若殆為 人菑夫。

Besides, a person of substantial integrity and solid trust

may still not gain the approval of others; a person who does not

contend for name and fame may still not gain the acquiescence

of others. In such circumstances, forcibly to flaunt talk about

humaneness, righteousness, and codes of conduct before a tyrant

would be to glorify oneself at the expense of another's failings.

This is called 'hurting others.' Those who hurt others will

certainly be hurt by others in return. I'm afraid that you'll be

hurt by others!

 

且苟為人悅賢而惡不肖，惡用而求有以異？若唯無詔，王公必將乘人而鬥其捷。而目將熒之，而色將平之，口將營之，容將形之，心且成之。是以火救火， 以水救水，名之曰益多。順始無窮，若殆以不信厚言，必死於暴人之前矣！

"What's more, if the lord appreciates the worthy and de-

spises the unworthy, what need is there for you to try to be

different? If you do not offer your views, the prince will certainly

take advantage to display his own eloquence. Your eyes will be

dazzled, your face fall flat, your mouth mutter diffidently, your

expression embody your submissiveness, and your mind will

confirm it. This is to fight fire with fire, drain water with water.

We may call it excess: If you are compliant from the start, there

will be no end to it. But I fear that if you speak honestly to

someone who does not trust you, you will certainly die at the

hands of the tyrant

 

 

且昔者桀殺關龍逢，紂殺王子比干，是皆修其身以下傴拊人之民，以下拂其上者也，故其 君因其修以擠之。是好名者也。昔者堯攻叢、枝、胥、敖，禹攻有扈。國為虛厲，身為刑戮。其用兵不止，其求實無已，是皆求名實者也，而獨不聞之乎？名實者， 聖人之所不能勝也，而況若乎！雖然，若必有以也，嘗以語我來。」

 

"Of old, Kuan Lungp'ang was executed by Chieh and Prince

Pikan was executed by Chow. Both had cultivated themselves as

inferiors out of solicitude for their rulers' subjects. As inferiors,

they ran afoul of their superiors, consequently their lords pushed

them aside. This was due to their love of fame. Also, of old, Yao

attacked Ts'ungchih and Hsii'ao, and Yu attacked the freehold at

Hu. These countries were reduced to haunted wastelands and

their rulers put to death. They were constantly engaged in war

and always on the lookout for gain. These are all examples of

individuals who sought fame or gain. Haven't you heard of them?

Even the sage could not conquer the attractions of fame and

gain. Can you? Nonetheless you must have a plan in mind. Let us

hear what it is."

[Marblehead]

I like that. It is actually pretty smooth reading.

[Rara]

I struggled a bit when reading this part yesterday...

 

Mainly because I read in context that Confuious is the butt if Chuang Tzu's jokes...but here he seems to have the answer. Have I missed the punch line? Lol

[Marblehead]

I think that Confucius was used in a dual role by Chuang Tzu. Confucius was aware of the "Way", of "Tao".

 

It was the altering of man's nature taught by Confucius that Chuang Tzu was strongly against.

 

The example above represents Confucius understanding the ways of man.

[Rara]

Thanks! See the dangers of reading generalisations? Really interferes with the reading of the text itself. That's why I usually like to stay away from other people's interpretations/commentaries. Glad I'm not missing anything here then

[Marblehead]

Thanks! See the dangers of reading generalisations? Really interferes with the reading of the text itself. That's why I usually like to stay away from other people's interpretations/commentaries. Glad I'm not missing anything here then

Yeah. I think it is best that we read (whatever) first and then discuss our understanding with others. Others will likely have picked up on things we missed and also attained a different understanding than we had and a discussion will either cause us to reevaluate our understanding or might reinforce our initial understanding.

 

And please don't just ake my word regarding anything. Yes, please listen and then go test what I said. I have been known to be wrong. (Actually, there are some members here who thing I am totally wrong but that's their understanding, not mine. Hehehe.)

[nestentrie]

This has to be one of my favourite chapters of chuang tzu. For me it's interesting how readily I can myself get into the debate of whether to correct the ruler or leave him be. It's as if I have friends whom I'd like to change and yet can't help be a little shameful about my own attitude about it.

 

The importance of never having ulterior motives in made plain in this chapter. If we could renounce our sagacity indeed.

[Marblehead]

The importance of never having ulterior motives in made plain in this chapter. If we could renounce our sagacity indeed.

This is worthy of repeating.

[Rara]

This has to be one of my favourite chapters of chuang tzu. For me it's interesting how readily I can myself get into the debate of whether to correct the ruler or leave him be. It's as if I have friends whom I'd like to change and yet can't help be a little shameful about my own attitude about it.

 

The importance of never having ulterior motives in made plain in this chapter. If we could renounce our sagacity indeed.

Yes! My mum claims that I have a defeatest attitude re government, police etc. I say it's wisdom. Some can be spoken to on a reasonable level, sure, but they will make it obvious that they are open minded enough from the start!

[Stosh]

I read it , maybe similarly, in that Confucious considered it to be a no win scenario to try to turn him from his chosen path against his explicit indication of cooperation. One defends their behavior. What a person most needs to learn is that which is unwelcome or has already been judged and found wanting. Confucious is making some weak assumptions about the character of the ruler and assumed away the possibility of fixing the situation short of force .. this mindset is pessimistic about the nature of men but is possibly justified... so that which was a worthy goal was aborted before it even began .

It is possible the ruler was beginning to see the flaws of his rule yet hiding it. Who can say with such elaborate certainty what tomorrow might bring. Living in the moment ..the attempt would have at least been made.

And so being, this type of thinking perpetuates the bad leadership ,and failure , over and over again.

Edited November 30, 2013 by Stosh

[Marblehead]

A defeatist attitude will prevent any advancements. True, at least you won't be wasting your time trying to do something that will likely fail.

 

So do we sit quietly and say nothing? Do we not try to impove condition because we think the effort will be of no avail?

 

Chuang Tzu would like say, "Let it pass."

 

Personally, if I think I might be able to influence something for the better I will at least give it a shot. If I fail then I accept the thought that the change I hoped for wasn't meant to be.

[Stosh]

I don't get why it is that you 1 understand the reasoning against the defeatist attitude

2 personally feel that its virtuous to at least try..3 endorse Chuang tzu ......

And yet present that he has the nonvirtuous defeatist attitude designed to fail.

 

If I am wrong , then why the refrain at the end? If he thought confucious to be wrong minded

competition,, Why would one present him as the wise teacher? And far apart from that sort of argument, Would a sage live in the present or rationalize away reason to do what he felt was best for the people? You told me a long time ago that given the choice a sage would opt to do the right thing..not hide hiss ass at home because some overly imaginative pessimistic misguided phd calculated that it could not work.I thought your motto was never surrender,, I thought another was that the mission must come first. Why read him at all then, the entire work might just as well be tossed on the pile with all the rest of the fairy tales.

.Harrumph!

 

 

 

[Rara]

I'm slowly seeing some things that could be contradictory in Chuang Tzu. Deciphering it is a hard task! The vibe I get is that he opted out of a lot of worldly affairs due to realising that history has proven that humanity and ego goes round in circles.

 

Some would call this apathy, right?

 

I think the important thing to recognise is that Chuang Tzu was just a dude...as am I, as am you. And if he sat at this table with us, and we were not star struck and treated him like any other on this forum, we would realise that our philosophies would differ quite a bit!

 

Generally speaking, I wouldn't try and change a politician's way of thinking. Why else would they become a politician if they didn't want to have their own way? Anyone can pretend/dupe the public into believing they are fit for the job.

 

So why would MH continue to fight that? Surely you would agree that would be stupid? Or a waste of energy, more importantly...

[Marblehead]

You sure got me all mixed up with that post. WoW! How to even respond?

I don't get why it is that you

1 understand the reasoning against the defeatist attitude

First determine if there is anything you can do about the situation. If not then better to do nothing.

 

2 personally feel that its virtuous to at least try..

If you know that whatever you do will be of no avail why waste your time and effort. Save your energy for when conditions allow for you actions to make a difference.

 

3 endorse Chuang tzu ......

The Chuang Tzu contains great wisdom.

 

And yet present that he has the nonvirtuous defeatist attitude designed to fail.

No. I presented him as being one who knew that in the above story any action would be of no avail.

 

If I am wrong , then why the refrain at the end?

That was my personal opinion aside from the story.

 

If he thought confucious to be wrong minded competition,, Why would one present him as the wise teacher?

In this story his guidance was based in wisdom. Just because we don't agree with much of one says it doesn't mean we have to discount those things they say that have value.

 

And far apart from that sort of argument, Would a sage live in the present or rationalize away reason to do what he felt was best for the people?

He would also do what was best for himself. Why would he go tell the emperor that he was all screwed up and then be put to death? What would that gain? Nothing but your death.

 

You told me a long time ago that given the choice a sage would opt to do the right thing..not hide hiss ass at home because some overly imaginative pessimistic misguided phd calculated that it could not work.

Yes, do the right thing. Putting one's ass on the line is in almost all cases not the right thing to do especially if you think what you are about to do will lead you only to trouble. Timing is very important in almost everything in life.

 

I thought your motto was never surrender,,

It is. Still is. But let's face it, if I am out of ammo and I have four loaded and unlocked weapons pointed at me I promise you I will drop my weapon, be imprisoned, hopefully escape so that I can continue the mission. To die for nothing is stupid.

 

I thought another was that the mission must come first.

And so if we do escape we can continue the mission. If we are dead we cannot.

 

Why read him at all then, the entire work might just as well be tossed on the pile with all the rest of the fairy tales. .Harrumph!

Because his is one of the best, if not the best, life philosophy I have ever read. Don't put your ass unnecessarily on the line so that you might live a long life. That's pretty good guidance, in my opinion.

[Marblehead]

I'm slowly seeing some things that could be contradictory in Chuang Tzu. Deciphering it is a hard task! The vibe I get is that he opted out of a lot of worldly affairs due to realising that history has proven that humanity and ego goes round in circles.

True.

 

Some would call this apathy, right?

I call it wisdom.

 

I think the important thing to recognise is that Chuang Tzu was just a dude...as am I, as am you. And if he sat at this table with us, and we were not star struck and treated him like any other on this forum, we would realise that our philosophies would differ quite a bit!

I think it is likely that there were some who wanted to be his student but I doubt he formally took in students.

 

Generally speaking, I wouldn't try and change a politician's way of thinking. Why else would they become a politician if they didn't want to have their own way? Anyone can pretend/dupe the public into believing they are fit for the job.

That is extremely true. But even knowing this I still write my Senator or Rep when I have an opinion to voice.

 

So why would MH continue to fight that? Surely you would agree that would be stupid? Or a waste of energy, more importantly...

If we don't say that we think something is wrong everyone will think that everything is right. But don't be so forceful that you cause yourself more problems.

[Stosh]

I'm slowly seeing some things that could be contradictory in Chuang Tzu. Deciphering it is a hard task! The vibe I get is that he opted out of a lot of worldly affairs due to realising that history has proven that humanity and ego goes round in circles.Some would call this apathy, right?

 

 

Yes that fits along the lines of apathea.. but the common usage assumes the attitude is associated with depression because they can't understand that a person could be outside their own worldview.

 

 

 

 

 

 

?I think the important thing to recognise is that Chuang Tzu was just a dude...as am I, as am you. And if he sat at this table with us, and we were not star struck and treated him like any other on this forum, we would realise that our philosophies would differ quite a bit! No one awestrikes me but I would love the opportunity to he can counter whatever views we didn't share and I'd be perfectly willing to stick my own neck out and challenge it.

 

 

 

Generally speaking, I wouldn't try and change a politician's way of thinking. Why else would they become a politician if they didn't want to have their own way? Anyone can pretend/dupe the public into believing they are fit for the job.So why would MH continue to fight that? Surely you would agree that would be stupid? Or a waste of energy, more importantly...

Well its your prerogative whether to speak truth to power or not. Like I said there IS probably justification that one can find to avoid a confrontation one expects to lose , and indeed that folks just don't want to hear that they are wrong or that they are not virtued. The question is important to consider the many suffering and dead . The virtuous thing is to at least try rather than to be talked out of doing the thing you believe must be done by some overesteemed authority. Someone could have told the same defeatest story to all the worlds greatest leaders and heroes. Fact of the matter is that one is afraid they just don't want themselves shown as such and they'll try to submarine efforts that would do so to protect their ego. They want to have their fear , their lack of virtue the appearance of simply being an act of discretion. Sometimes the virtuous thing is to try expecting to fail since the cause is worth it. Yes there is banging ones head against a brick wall too, which is why this issue is so subtley difficult. Notice that he says its ALMOST aways stupid to put your ass on the line