Is Chuang-tzu a Taoist?

[rene]

Definition for Tao.

 

LaoTze: Tao is to follow "Wu Wei" which is the Principles of Nature. He will be Wu Wei to Nature.

 

Zhuang Tze: Tao is to follow the inner nature of oneself. Let Nature be Wu Wei to him.

 

Confucius: Tao is the outer nature of oneself by proving one's moral conducts to one's society. He is You Wei.

 

CD - I dont know if all that is true, but I think it's brilliant and may very well be.

It feels right as far as Laozi goes. Well done. Have an apple. (-:

 

[samwardell]

Wow, I was thinking yesterday that this thread may have run its course... nice to be wrong.

 

Thanks all for your contributions. So rather than skirting around the issue any longer I will elaborate on what I think Chuang-tzu of the inner chapters means by tao.

 

[incidentally, marblehead, I would agree that the standard divisions of the Chuang-tzu into three parts can get in the way of interpretation, however I am reasonably convinced that the inner chapters represent a discrete philosophical voice which, a few fragments in the outer chapters aside, is absent from the rest of the text.]

 

This may take a while, will post when I’m done!

[samwardell]

Apologies up front, this post has ballooned, sorry about the length…

 

Tao in the Lao-tzu:

 

First: tao can take titles; we have the ‘constant’ (ch’ang) tao in ch 1 and ch 37, the ‘great’ (ta) tao in ch 18 and ch 34, ‘heaven’s’ (T’ian chih) tao in ch 9 and ch 73 etc…

 

Second: tao takes various descriptions; tao is like ‘water’ (shui) (ch 8), tao is ‘empty’ (ch’ung) (ch 4), tao ‘follows its own nature’ (fa tzu jan) (ch 25), tao ‘is without a name’ (ch’ang wu ming) (ch 37), tao ‘does not contend’ (pu cheng) (ch 73), tao ‘hides’ (yin), tao ‘engenders The One’ (shen i) (ch 42) [this is perhaps a surprising description as in other chapters tao seems to be synonymous with The One (i) see eg chs 14, 22, 39] etc…

 

Third: the activity of the sage relates to the tao in particular we find linking words like: ‘sustains’ (ch 15), ‘practices’ (ch 41), ‘pursues’ (ch 48), ‘follows’ (ch 15) and ‘returns’ (ch 28) etc…

 

Fourth: tao is explicitly linked to other key concepts, most noticeably te (eg ch 21), tzu jan (eg ch 25) and wu wei (eg ch. 48).

 

Given all of the above it is inconceivable that we could interpret tao in the Lao-tzu as anything other than “The Way” (the important point here is the use of the definite article and the capitalisation as a proper noun, obviously the use of the word ‘way’ is itself highly arguable ) I am not going to try and explore the rabbit hole of exactly what “The Way” in Lao-tzu is (and given The Way is wu ming it would be a somewhat doomed endeavour anyhow); that tao is interpreted as “The Way” is enough for my purposes.

 

Tao in the Analects of Confucius:

 

From part 1: The Master said, "While a man's father is alive, look at the bent of his will; when his father is dead, look at his conduct. If for three years he does not alter from the way of his father, he may be called filial."

 

From part 3: "In archery it is not going through the leather which is the principal thing - because people's strength is not equal. This was the old way."

 

From part 4: "Riches and honours are what men desire. If it cannot be obtained in the proper way, they should not be held. Poverty and meanness are what men dislike. If it cannot be avoided in the proper way, they should not be avoided...”

 

What is clear from Confucius’ use of tao in the Analects is two things. First is that it is an important concept; the word appears frequently. Second is that there are many different taos. For Confucius there are different ‘ways’ for different people. His own proposed tao is a practice of ritual and filial virtue harking back to the early Chou dynasty. However he is not proposing that this tao of the early Chou is “The Way” (as in Lao-tzu) but merely ‘a way’ which leads to a harmonious society – he designates this superiority to other ‘ways’ by calling it ‘the proper way’ (see above).

 

If we use tao in this manner we can talk of ‘a father’s way’, ‘an archer’s way’, ‘a butcher’s way’, ‘a proper way’, ‘an improper way’, ‘my way’, ‘your way’, ‘a good way’, ‘a bad way’ etc... We are even free to pluralise it: ‘many ways’, ‘some ways’, ‘all ways’ etc… This, it should be obvious, is a very different use of tao compared to Lao-tzu’s “The Way”.

 

Tao in Chuang-tzu (inner chapters):

 

The following are translations from Graham 1981. He interprets tao in a Laoist manner. In the excerpts below I have ‘de-translated’ ‘The Way’ back to tao.

 

“The sage does not work for any goal, does not lean towards benefit or shun harm, does not delight in seeking, does not fix a route by tao … and roams beyond the dust and grime.” Ch 2

 

In this passage interpreting tao as ‘The Way’ leads to a baffling result; that the ‘sage’ does not follow ‘The Way’. This would be strange for two reasons, first, because it is using ‘The Way’ in a negative sense; second because elsewhere in the text ‘sages’ are associated with tao. In fact in ch 6 the ‘woman Chü’ talks explicitly of the sage’s tao. On the other hand if we interpret tao closer to how Confucius does then the passage suddenly makes sense: “the say does not follow any way”; ie he is not beholdent to a particular way of doing things but is instead adaptable to changing circumstances. Here then tao - used negatively - is contrasted with yu (roam) - used positively.

 

This interpretation has another advantage in making sense of the strange ‘axis of tao’ passage earlier in ch 2:

 

What is It [shih] is also Other [pi], what is Other is also It. There they say ‘That’s it [shih], that’s not [fei] from one point of view, here we say ‘That’s it, that’s not’ from another point of view. Are there really It and Other? Or really no It and Other? Where neither It nor Other finds its opposite is called the axis of tao. When once the axis is found at the centre of the circle there is no limit to responding with either, on the one hand there is no limit to what is It, on the other hand there is no limit to what is not. Therefore I say: “the best means is illumination [ming]”.

 

If we interpret tao as “The Way” two immediate issues arise. First is the peculiarity of the image – certainly none of the descriptions in the Lao-tzu would suggest “The Way” has parts or a mechanism. Second, why in a passage clearly about disputation of the philosophers (all that shih-ing, pi-ing and fei-ing) does the word tao appear at all? It seems to suddenly pop up and disappear again without explanation or adding much to the sense of the passage!

 

If, on the other hand, we interpret tao as ‘the ways’ then the passage makes beautiful sense. The shih-ing pi-ing and fei-ing of the philosophers are their own personal ‘ways’ and the ‘illumination’ (ming) that Chuang-tzu recommends is to stand on the ‘axis’ allowing the temporary adoption of any particular ‘way’ in an adaptable manner (which it seems to me as good an interpretation of Chuang-tzu’s yin shih as you can get).

 

In chapter 3 we get another strong hint that Chuang-tzu is using tao in a non-Laoist manner:

 

Cook Ting was carving an ox for Lord Wen-hui …

“Oh excellent!” Said Lord Wen-hui. “That skill should attain such heights!”

“What your servant cares about is tao, I have left skill behind me….” Ch 3

 

If we interpret tao here as “The Way” we would expect a pretty mystical passage to follow dealing themes from Laoist philosophy, instead we find a fairly practical account of skilful butchery (seehttp://thetaobums.co...the-chuang-tzu/). Here, again, interpreting tao as ‘a way’ makes far more sense; the butcher is teaching his way – ie the ‘way of a skilful butcher’.

 

HOWEVER…

 

At the end of the butcher Ting passage Lord Wen-hui says “excellent from listening to butcher Ting I have learned how to nurture (yang) life”. Implying that the butcher’s way does teach us something universal. Similarly in Ch 6 we find this passage:

 

“As for tao, it is something with identity, something to trust in, but does nothing, has not shape.”

 

Just as the above passages make far more sense if we interpret tao as ‘a way’ this passage makes far more sense if we interpret tao as ‘The Way’.

 

-----

 

It seems to me we should take Chuang-tzu’s own advice. Instead of having a fixed ‘that’s it’ (wei shih) with our interpretation of tao as "The Way" of Laoist philosophy, we should be more flexible (yin shih) willing to use the Confucian understanding of tao as 'a way'. If the context makes more sense with tao interpreted ‘a way’ then we should do so, if it makes more sense as ‘The Way’ that’s fine too. As Chuang-tzu says: ‘let both alternatives proceed’.

Edited September 7, 2012 by samwardell

[Marblehead]

Definition for Tao.

Good job. Yes, I can accept that. So, in the following discussions perhaps we can verify its truth and the reasons why. Thanks!

 

PS to Sam. I agree with what you are saying as long as we concentrate on what he says to promote his own ideas instead of concentrating on his disagreements with Confucian ideas.

[Marblehead]

Apologies up front, this post has ballooned, sorry about the length…

Yeah, it was long. Hehehe. But I like it! I will wait for others to speak before presenting my very biased opinions.

[rene]

Sam, hi, no worries about the length of the post! Sometimes the longer one speaks the more chance others have to spot where there might be agreement, disagreement, confusion, etc.

 

Your analysis of the word "tao", as it's used in those portions of the three writings you presented, seems logical. I'm a bit confused, however, as to why you would be confused (or feel there is confusion) regarding the applications or intended uses of the t-word, within or between the writings.

 

From early days, it's understood that the t-word has two completely different meanings (more than just same word used as either a noun or verb. The noun/verb ideas can, and usually are!, debated about each of the meanings.)

 

The Great Tao - as it's sometimes called - is the all-encompasing _____ . Laozi spoke about this Tao more than any other body of work I've found.

 

The other meaning for the t-word is: way, method, nature as applied to something specific. For example, the tao of water (the way of water), or the tao of brick-laying (the method of brick-laying), or the tao of mice (the nature of mice). This tao is also used to mean: path - which is not unlike the other meanings.

 

I'm sure all this is a known given for you (how could it not be?) so when you suggest that Chuang's 'tao' is different than Lao's 'tao' - my first look is to see if you are comparing apples to apples, or apples to pears. (-:

 

Please excuse what I'm about to do to your post. I'm going to colour the 'Great Tao' in blue, and the other meaning of tao in red)

 

 

Apologies up front, this post has ballooned, sorry about the length…

 

Tao in the Lao-tzu:

 

First: tao can take titles; we have the ‘constant’ (ch’ang) tao in ch 1 and ch 37, the ‘great’ (ta) tao in ch 18 and ch 34, ‘heaven’s’ (T’ian chih) tao in ch 9 and ch 73 etc…

 

Second: tao takes various descriptions; tao is like ‘water’ (shui) (ch 8), tao is ‘empty’ (ch’ung) (ch 4), tao ‘follows its own nature’ (fa tzu jan) (ch 25), tao ‘is without a name’ (ch’ang wu ming) (ch 37), tao ‘does not contend’ (pu cheng) (ch 73), tao ‘hides’ (yin), tao ‘engenders The One’ (shen i) (ch 42) [this is perhaps a surprising description as in other chapters tao seems to be synonymous with The One (i) see eg chs 14, 22, 39] etc…

 

Third: the activity of the sage relates to the tao in particular we find linking words like: ‘sustains’ (ch 15), ‘practices’ (ch 41), ‘pursues’ (ch 48), ‘follows’ (ch 15) and ‘returns’ (ch 28) etc…

 

Fourth: tao is explicitly linked to other key concepts, most noticeably te (eg ch 21), tzu jan (eg ch 25) and wu wei (eg ch. 48).

 

Given all of the above it is inconceivable that we could interpret tao in the Lao-tzu as anything other than “The Way” (the important point here is the use of the definite article and the capitalisation as a proper noun, obviously the use of the word ‘way’ is itself highly arguable ) I am not going to try and explore the rabbit hole of exactly what “The Way” in Lao-tzu is (and given The Way is wu ming it would be a somewhat doomed endeavour anyhow); that tao is interpreted as “The Way” is enough for my purposes.

 

Tao in the Analects of Confucius:

 

From part 1: The Master said, "While a man's father is alive, look at the bent of his will; when his father is dead, look at his conduct. If for three years he does not alter from the way of his father, he may be called filial."

 

From part 3: "In archery it is not going through the leather which is the principal thing - because people's strength is not equal. This was the old way."

 

From part 4: "Riches and honours are what men desire. If it cannot be obtained in the proper way, they should not be held. Poverty and meanness are what men dislike. If it cannot be avoided in the proper way, they should not be avoided...”

 

What is clear from Confucius’ use of tao in the Analects is two things. First is that it is an important concept; the word appears frequently. Second is that there are many different taos. [Right! the second meaning of 'tao'] For Confucius there are different ‘ways’ for different people. His own proposed tao is a practice of ritual and filial virtue harking back to the early Chou dynasty. However he is not proposing that this tao of the early Chou is “The Way” (as in Lao-tzu) but merely ‘a way’ which leads to a harmonious society – he designates this superiority to other ‘ways’ by calling it ‘the proper way’ (see above).

 

If we use tao in this manner we can talk of ‘a father’s way’, ‘an archer’s way’, ‘a butcher’s way’, ‘a proper way’, ‘an improper way’, ‘my way’, ‘your way’, ‘a good way’, ‘a bad way’ etc... We are even free to pluralise it: ‘many ways’, ‘some ways’, ‘all ways’ etc… This, it should be obvious, is a very different use of tao compared to Lao-tzu’s “The Way”. [Right! So..where's the confusion??]

 

Tao in Chuang-tzu (inner chapters):

 

The following are translations from Graham 1981. He interprets tao in a Laoist manner. In the excerpts below I have ‘de-translated’ ‘The Way’ back to tao.

 

“The sage does not work for any goal, does not lean towards benefit or shun harm, does not delight in seeking, does not fix a route by tao … and roams beyond the dust and grime.” Ch 2

 

In this passage interpreting tao as ‘The Way’ leads to a baffling result; that the ‘sage’ does not follow ‘The Way’. [Wrong read, imo. Discussed more below] This would be strange for two reasons, first, because it is using ‘The Way’ in a negative sense; second because elsewhere in the text ‘sages’ are associated with tao. In fact in ch 6 the ‘woman Chü’ talks explicitly of the sage’s tao. On the other hand if we interpret tao closer to how Confucius does then the passage suddenly makes sense: “the say does not follow any way”; ie he is not beholdent to a particular way of doing things but is instead adaptable to changing circumstances. Here then tao - used negatively - is contrasted with yu (roam) - used positively.

 

This interpretation has another advantage in making sense of the strange ‘axis of tao’ passage earlier in ch 2:

 

What is It [shih] is also Other [pi], what is Other is also It. There they say ‘That’s it [shih], that’s not [fei] from one point of view, here we say ‘That’s it, that’s not’ from another point of view. Are there really It and Other? Or really no It and Other? Where neither It nor Other finds its opposite is called the axis of tao. When once the axis is found at the centre of the circle there is no limit to responding with either, on the one hand there is no limit to what is It, on the other hand there is no limit to what is not. Therefore I say: “the best means is illumination [ming]”.

 

If we interpret tao as “The Way” two immediate issues arise. First is the peculiarity of the image – certainly none of the descriptions in the Lao-tzu would suggest “The Way” has parts or a mechanism. Second, why in a passage clearly about disputation of the philosophers (all that shih-ing, pi-ing and fei-ing) does the word tao appear at all? It seems to suddenly pop up and disappear again without explanation or adding much to the sense of the passage! [see below]

 

If, on the other hand, we interpret tao as ‘the ways’ then the passage makes beautiful sense. The shih-ing pi-ing and fei-ing of the philosophers are their own personal ‘ways’ and the ‘illumination’ (ming) that Chuang-tzu recommends is to stand on the ‘axis’ allowing the temporary adoption of any particular ‘way’ in an adaptable manner (which it seems to me as good an interpretation of Chuang-tzu’s yin shih as you can get).

 

In chapter 3 we get another strong hint that Chuang-tzu is using tao in a non-Laoist manner:

 

Cook Ting was carving an ox for Lord Wen-hui …

“Oh excellent!” Said Lord Wen-hui. “That skill should attain such heights!”

“What your servant cares about is tao, I have left skill behind me….” Ch 3

 

If we interpret tao here as “The Way” we would expect a pretty mystical passage to follow dealing themes from Laoist philosophy, instead we find a fairly practical account of skilful butchery (seehttp://thetaobums.co...the-chuang-tzu/). Here, again, interpreting tao as ‘a way’ makes far more sense; the butcher is teaching his way – ie the ‘way of a skilful butcher’.

 

HOWEVER…

 

At the end of the butcher Ting passage Lord Wen-hui says “excellent from listening to butcher Ting I have learned how to nurture (yang) life”. Implying that the butcher’s way does teach us something universal. Similarly in Ch 6 we find this passage:

 

“As for tao, it is something with identity, something to trust in, but does nothing, has not shape.”

 

Just as the above passages make far more sense if we interpret tao as ‘a way’ this passage makes far more sense if we interpret tao as ‘The Way’.

 

-----

 

It seems to me we should take Chuang-tzu’s own advice. Instead of having a fixed ‘that’s it’ (wei shih) with our interpretation of tao as "The Way" of Laoist philosophy, we should be more flexible (yin shih) willing to use the Confucian understanding of tao as 'a way'. If the context makes more sense with tao interpreted ‘a way’ then we should do so, if it makes more sense as ‘The Way’ that’s fine too. As Chuang-tzu says: ‘let both alternatives proceed’.

 

**Reply continued below**

Edited September 7, 2012 by rene

[ChiDragon]

Tao is "principle" but not the "way". A "way" is only part of a principle rather than the whole principle. Besides it's a principle, LaoTze had vitalized Tao with many descriptions such as invisible, profound, and obscure. In this case, Tao is Tao rather than a principle or a way. Hence, using the term "The Way" as a translation is improper and doesn't fit here.

 

Tao in Confucian is the Principle of Morality rather than the Way of Morality.

 

Zhuang Tze use Tao in the same manner as LaoTze but only he putted more emphasis on the Principles of Living for a free individual by blending himself with Nature. Again by following the natural path of Nature as LaoTze suggested but in a reverse manner. LaoTze wants to yield to Nature but Zhuang Tze wants Nature to yield to him. Zhuang Tze wants to live his inner self and did not want to deal with the outer part of his life. For example, he refused the offer to become a bishop from the ruler of the Sate of Chu. He told the messengers of Chu that he rather fishing than taken care of somebody else's problem. So, he can be free of all headaches. He was preferred to have a life as "wanderer" to go anywhere as he pleases without any restriction. He thinks that each individual should have a trouble free mind. The human soul should be relaxed at all time with no worries.

 

@rene...Thank you for the fresh apple.....

 

 

Edited September 7, 2012 by ChiDragon

[Stosh]

It seems they are discussing feasible - advantageous paradigms from various perspectives to me and just as Marblehead said, it seems to be an umbrella concept they can all fit under despite their differences. Please continue I apologize for butting that in.

Stosh

[Stosh]

oops

Edited September 7, 2012 by Stosh

[rene]

- Continued reply from above -

 

Regarding:

 

“The sage does not work for any goal, does not lean towards benefit or shun harm, does not delight in seeking, does not fix a route by tao … and roams beyond the dust and grime.” Ch 2

 

In this passage interpreting tao as ‘The Way’ leads to a baffling result; that the ‘sage’ does not follow ‘The Way’. This would be strange for two reasons, first, because it is using ‘The Way’ in a negative sense; second because elsewhere in the text ‘sages’ are associated with tao.

 

I disagree that this is a 'negative sense' by interpreting this use of tao as 'The Way'. The 'Great Tao' has no path to follow, fixed or otherwise! It is only the preference of humans to assign a delineated path to the Great Tao - and their assignments (sometimes called 'Principles') naturally reflect their own perspectives, preferences, or chosen tradition.

 

Regarding:

 

What is It [shih] is also Other [pi], what is Other is also It. There they say ‘That’s it [shih], that’s not [fei] from one point of view, here we say ‘That’s it, that’s not’ from another point of view. Are there really It and Other? Or really no It and Other? Where neither It nor Other finds its opposite is called the axis of tao. When once the axis is found at the centre of the circle there is no limit to responding with either, on the one hand there is no limit to what is It, on the other hand there is no limit to what is not. Therefore I say: “the best means is illumination [ming]”.

 

If we interpret tao as “The Way” two immediate issues arise. First is the peculiarity of the image – certainly none of the descriptions in the Lao-tzu would suggest “The Way” has parts or a mechanism. Second, why in a passage clearly about disputation of the philosophers (all that shih-ing, pi-ing and fei-ing) does the word tao appear at all? It seems to suddenly pop up and disappear again without explanation or adding much to the sense of the passage!

 

The peculiarity you speak of is indeed a puzzlement for many. Maybe an easier way to think about this is that inherent in every individual 'way' is the underlying 'great tao', which is indeed like the center point of the wheel where the individual spokes (ways) meet. I've heard this also called the 'pivot of tao'. From that center point, which has no 'parts or mechanism' - each individual 'way' springs forth, from their common source. And yes, from time to time that 'pivot of tao' does pop up seemingly out of nowhere! (as the word did in the passage) but is instantly recognizable... or so it seems to me.

 

Sam, your post is so full of wonderful ideas to talk about. I think I'll pause for comments before continuing.

 

warm regards

[Marblehead]

I just want to add, at this point in time, that I agree that the word "Tao" is used by both Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu as both a noun and as a verb. As a noun - All, as a verb - Way.

 

One of the first translations of the TTC I ever read was titled (of course) Tao Te Ching and subtitled "The Way And Its Power".

 

Henricks almost always used the word "Way" rather than "Tao".

 

And even though Chuang Tzu was more into the metaphisics of life he almost always spoke of the "Way" as a verb instead of "Tao" as a noun.

 

I do agree with what Chidragon stated above as well. Chuang Tzu spoke more of personal freedom, I think, than he did of any other topic.

[rene]

Marblehead, hi

 

For clarity - this:

 

I just want to add, at this point in time, that I agree that the word "Tao" is used by both Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu as both a noun and as a verb. As a noun - All, as a verb - Way.

 

One of the first translations of the TTC I ever read was titled (of course) Tao Te Ching and subtitled "The Way And Its Power".

 

Henricks almost always used the word "Way" rather than "Tao".

 

And even though Chuang Tzu was more into the metaphisics of life he almost always spoke of the "Way" as a verb instead of "Tao" as a noun.

[...]

 

Is all referring to noun/verb ideas about the "Great Tao", (regardless of what its named; Tao, Way, whatever).

 

Is that correct?

 

Thanks!

 

From early days, it's understood that the t-word has two completely different meanings (more than just same word used as either a noun or verb. The noun/verb ideas can be, and usually are!, debated about each of the meanings.)

[Marblehead]

Marblehead, hi

 

For clarity - this:

 

Is all referring to noun/verb ideas about the "Great Tao", (regardless of what its named; Tao, Way, whatever).

 

Is that correct?

 

Thanks!

In this conversation, "All" is to be understood as a noun, comparable to your "Great Tao". I simply cannot define Tao, the noun, and rarely even try. Everything and every non-thing seems to be as close as I can get to it.

 

The verb, however, would include "The Way of Tao (All)" as well as "The Way of Man" or "The Tao (Way) of Motorcycle Repair" or any other process that follows a 'natural' process. (I got back to Tzu Jan, didn't I?) Hehehe.

[rene]

In this conversation, "All" is to be understood as a noun, comparable to your "Great Tao". I simply cannot define Tao, the noun, and rarely even try. Everything and every non-thing seems to be as close as I can get to it.

 

The verb, however, would include "The Way of Tao (All)" as well as "The Way of Man" or "The Tao (Way) of Motorcycle Repair" or any other process that follows a 'natural' process. (I got back to Tzu Jan, didn't I?) Hehehe.

 

Thanks for clarifying your uses; which are different than mine. Now at least I'll know our (your and my) dialogues will have no chance whatsoever. LOLOL

 

To make sure I understand your method:

 

Tao as a noun = the Great Tao

Tao as a verb = the Way of the Great Tao, and/or the ways of man, or the ways of motorcycle repair, etc.

 

If that works for you, nothing wrong with that!

 

My perspective finds the Great Tao as both noun and verb simultaneously; and the different "ways(taos)" of man sometimes line up harmoniously with surroundings and sometimes not. It's under that schema my earlier posts were made, and is part of samwardell's premise, I think.

 

Now I'm going to find my way to a glass of zinfandel. (-:

 

warm regards

 

p.s...dont worry about defining the Great Tao. I slide my way out with a " _______ ". LOL

 

edit: add colour to line up with earlier post to Sam

Edited September 7, 2012 by rene

[Marblehead]

My perspective finds the Great Tao as both noun and verb simultaneously;

 

My little pea-brain wouldn't be able to work with that.

 

and the different "ways" of man sometimes line up harmoniously with surroundings and sometimes not. It's under that schema my earlier posts were made, and is part of samwardell's premise, I think.

 

We are in agreement here though.

 

Now I'm going to find my way to a glass of zinfandel. (-:

 

warm regards

 

p.s...dont worry about defining the Great Tao. I slide my way out with a " _______ ". LOL

Yeah, you know, the Tao (verb) that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao (noun). (Here used as a noun and as a verb if you want to look at it that way.)

 

My wine drinking is pretty much limited to Lambrusco because of the lower alcohol and its sweet, thickness.

Edited September 7, 2012 by Marblehead

[ChiDragon]

the Tao (verb) that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao (noun).

 

Correction:

Tao1 (noun) that can be spoken(tao, verb) is not the eternal Tao2 (noun).

 

Tao1 is the same as Tao2 in the sentence.

 

Can we put the "the" in front of a verb....???

The speak; read; write; or eat.

[rene]

My perspective finds the Great Tao as both noun and verb simultaneously;

 

My little pea-brain wouldn't be able to work with that.

 

Perhaps, but that's okay since this thread isn't about nouns and verbs.

[samwardell]

Hi all,

 

On the topic of whether tao should be translated as noun/verb ... there is no clear distinction in the ancient text, why should we assume that only one reading was meant? Or, as Rene points out, why should we assume that 'noun or verb' covers all the options, why not 'noun and verb'?

 

Anyhow my interest isn't grammatical it's conceptual: does Chaung-tzu have a Laoist understanding (both noun and verb - and noun/verb!) of tao; or can we make more sense of his philosophy if instead he uses tao in the 'small' sense?

 

 

Chidragon: I completely agree with you about the kind of 'free and easy wandering' ethic of the Chaung-tzu (which is exemplified in that lovely story of Chuang-tzu refusing a job); however I think this is more about the word yu. It seems to me that the word tao is used differently, and there are even passages where the two concepts are opposed to each other (see my last post).

 

Marblehead; I agree that 'naturalness' is important, however what I cannot find is any direct linking of tao to 'naturalness' in the Chuang-tzu inner chapters. Instead it seems to me that when we do come across the idea of naturalness it is associated not with tao but with t'ian. ie In the butcher Ting story, "what is inherently so" gu jan is defined as "heaven's structuring" tian li.

 

 

...I disagree that this is a 'negative sense' by interpreting this use of tao as 'The Way'. The 'Great Tao' has no path to follow, fixed or otherwise! It is only the preference of humans to assign a delineated path to the Great Tao - and their assignments (sometimes called 'Principles') naturally reflect their own perspectives, preferences, or chosen tradition.

...

The peculiarity you speak of is indeed a puzzlement for many. Maybe an easier way to think about this is that inherent in every individual 'way' is the underlying 'great tao', which is indeed like the center point of the wheel where the individual spokes (ways) meet. I've heard this also called the 'pivot of tao'. From that center point, which has no 'parts or mechanism' - each individual 'way' springs forth, from their common source. And yes, from time to time that 'pivot of tao' does pop up seemingly out of nowhere! (as the word did in the passage) but is instantly recognizable... or so it seems to me.

 

Lovely analysis I don't agree, but your position is very plausible. I would say that you are having to engage in a fair bit of 'footwork' - such as assuming the 'great tao' (thus allowing your analysis of "axis/pivot") when the word tao is never given that, or any similar, epithet in the text. Similarly, while I like your idea of "the great Tao" having no fixed path (is this your notion of wu tao?) we find in Lao-tzu the notion of 'following the tao' used in a pretty unambiguously positive sense [eg "man follows earth // earth follows heaven // heaven follows the tao"]...

 

In essence what I am arguing is that tao in Chuang-tzu's inner chapters is used in two senses:

 

The first (generally negative) is the 'way' of a philosopher. A philosophical tao determines how you divide up the world be designating things "it" shih and "other" pi and deeming things to be "that's it" shih and "that's not" fei. These determinations are classed as wei shih - inflexible philosophical standpoints. Chuang-tzu on the other hand suggests that we 'stand on the axis/pivot' of all these different taos and adopt any one at any time. This kind of determination is classed at yin shih - a flexible philosophical standpoint. The ability to respond flexibly yin shih is not associated with the word tao but rather wiht the word 'illumination' ming. This word does appear in the Lao-tzu (eg ch 33) but it is clearly not as important or as technically defined as it is in Chuang-tzu.

 

The second use of tao (generally positive) is the pragmatic 'way' of the skilful craftsman, which is associated with heaven t'ian and the mysterious word shen.

 

It is my view that the real message of the inner chapters is a rejection the analytic taos of philosophy (which ultimately divvies up the world into concepts - ie "is it a noun or a verb") and a celebration of the 'mystical' shen found in skilful activity (which, incidentally allows you to 'last out your years' in peace).

[Marblehead]

 

Correction:

 

Thanks. I'm still right though. Hehehe. Words will never satisfy here. At least we agree that "Tao" is used as both a noun and a verb.

[Marblehead]

Marblehead; I agree that 'naturalness' is important, however what I cannot find is any direct linking of tao to 'naturalness' in the Chuang-tzu inner chapters. Instead it seems to me that when we do come across the idea of naturalness it is associated not with tao but with t'ian. ie In the butcher Ting story, "what is inherently so" gu jan is defined as "heaven's structuring" tian li.

Hi Sam,

 

You presented me with a challenge. I love a challenge.

 

In Legge's translation of the Inner Chapters the word "natural" was used 10 times and the word "nature" was used 16 times.

 

In Taoist Philosophy my mind has linked "naturalness" and "nature" with the concept of "Tzu Jan". And remember, Tao follows Tzu Jan (its own naturalness).

 

During these discussions we will likely have to clarify things we have said in order to gain an accurate understanding of what the other has said but that's okay.

[rene]

Hi Sam,

 

Lovely analysis I don't agree, but your position is very plausible. I would say that you are having to engage in a fair bit of 'footwork' - such as assuming the 'great tao' (thus allowing your analysis of "axis/pivot") when the word tao is never given that, or any similar, epithet in the text. Similarly, while I like your idea of "the great Tao" having no fixed path (is this your notion of wu tao?) we find in Lao-tzu the notion of 'following the tao' used in a pretty unambiguously positive sense [eg "man follows earth // earth follows heaven // heaven follows the tao"]...

 

I was using the 'epithet' in my post, only for the purpose of our discussions, to differentiate between the Tao described in LZ Ch1 and the use of the word 'tao' throughout both LZ and ZZ in the context of a specific entity's method, nature, path, etc. I'm afraid that you and I would be hard pressed to find my word choices in these texts. LOL

 

Following the Tao (LZ'sCh1 Tao) is worth a thread of its own, a book of its own. Oh wait - one was already written. It's called The Laozi. (-: But what does it mean, 'to follow'? Is there a fixed path? method? Grab a map and go? To me, 'to follow' is more in the manner of 'to emulate'. To me, Tao has no 'fixed path' - and that is why a Sage does not (can not!) "follow" - for there is no where to go that Tao is not, i.e. Tao is right where one already is; unseparate and unboundaried. Trying to follow Tao would be like a fish trying to swim to where there is water.

 

Of course, none of this is 'laid out' in The Laozi - but it's what comes through the text; resoundingly, for me.

 

In essence what I am arguing is that tao in Chuang-tzu's inner chapters is used in two senses:

The first (generally negative) is the 'way' of a philosopher. A philosophical tao determines how you divide up the world be designating things "it" shih and "other" pi and deeming things to be "that's it" shih and "that's not" fei. These determinations are classed as wei shih - inflexible philosophical standpoints. Chuang-tzu on the other hand suggests that we 'stand on the axis/pivot' of all these different taos and adopt any one at any time. This kind of determination is classed at yin shih - a flexible philosophical standpoint. The ability to respond flexibly yin shih is not associated with the word tao but rather wiht the word 'illumination' ming. This word does appear in the Lao-tzu (eg ch 33) but it is clearly not as important or as technically defined as it is in Chuang-tzu. ... The second use of tao (generally positive) is the pragmatic 'way' of the skilful craftsman, which is associated with heaven t'ian and the mysterious word shen. ... It is my view that the real message of the inner chapters is a rejection the analytic taos of philosophy (which ultimately divvies up the world into concepts - ie "is it a noun or a verb") and a celebration of the 'mystical' shen found in skilful activity (which, incidentally allows you to 'last out your years' in peace).

 

The bits I bolded above in your quote reflects the nature of LZsCh1Tao (which is the axis/pivot); other than that I can only and delightfully yield to you and others to discuss your ideas. I wish I could participate more in your analytical analyses dissecting the texts, but, alas, my skillset is not on the words themselves; rather what comes through them. I'll scan my reference when it comes, to see what might be added to your ideas, and if memory serves, there will be at least a little something. (-:

 

warm regards

Edited September 8, 2012 by rene

[shanlung]

This thread has its genesis in another http://thetaobums.co...zu/#entry357667. What follows is academic and lacking in humour.

 

 

Ha ha ha ha!

 

For something thats lacking in humour, I wonder why I have this big grin on my face and laughter in my heart!

 

But somehow, any talk or mention even, of my old friend ChuangTzu brings me joy.

 

I love the way he talks of the Tao without even having to mention the Tao.

He can talk of everything without mentioning anything.

 

The Idiotic Taoist

[ChiDragon]

Thanks. I'm still right though. Hehehe. Words will never satisfy here. At least we agree that "Tao" is used as both a noun and a verb.

Let's follow the logic...

道1 可道2，非常 道1

 

Tao is the subject here, isn't it proper to state the subject at the beginning like:

道1可道2,

If Tao(道1, noun) can be spoken(道2, verb) of ,

 

非常道1

Then, it is not the eternal Tao1.

 

If Tao1 can be spoken(tao2) of, then, it is not the eternal Tao1.

[rene]

I love the way he talks of the Tao without even having to mention the Tao.

He can talk of everything without mentioning anything.

 

Agree! Tao is easily there. It's just allll thooooseeee wordddddsss.... lol.

 

glad you joined in, shanlung! stay and keep us lined up!

[ChiDragon]

Let's follow the MH's logic...

道2 可道2，非常 道1

 

道2可道2,

If speak(道2, verb) can be spoken(道2, verb) of ,

 

非常道1

Then, it is not the eternal Tao1.

 

If speak can be spoken of, then, it is not the eternal Tao.

 

Is this sound okay....???

Edited September 8, 2012 by ChiDragon