Is Chuang-tzu a Taoist?

[samwardell]

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

 

When I first read the Chuang-tzu I came at it from a traditional standpoint; ie that Chuang-tzu is talking about a particular Tao - which was a mystery first 'talked of' in the Lao-tzu and later became the Tao of the Taoist. Certainly that seems undeniably to be the case in much of the text (chps 8-10 & 17 in particular). However I have begun to seriously doubt it is true for the inner chapters. These ideas are not novel to me but have been explored by Hansen (in Mair 1983) and Eno (in Kjellberg/Inanhoe 1996).

 

[NOTE: From here on I will use “the Chuang-tzu” to refer only to the inner chapters and “Chuang-tzu” to refer to their author(s)]

 

First off there are some simple textual facts about the Chuang-tzu that might make us at least suspicious of the traditional approach:

 

i) The Lao-tzu is never quoted.

 

ii) While Lao-Tan is a (minor) character in the Chuang-tzu he is not associated with a body of text or particular teaching, and in last story of Ch 3 Lao Tan is effectively criticised as his disciples fail to understand death properly (an issue which is of central importance for Chuang-tzu - see esp. ch 6). It seems far more likely that Chuang-tzu's source for Lao-Tan's existence is as a character from his mention in Confucian literature which Chuang-tzu was fond of referencing (see, eg, the story of Chieh Yu, the 'madman' of Ch'u – last section Ch 4 & Analects Ch 18.)

 

iii) Setting aside the question of whether the Lao-tzu and Chuang-tzu are related thematically, they could not be more dissimilar stylistically, the terse poetry of the Lao-tzu (“like mountain peaks rising from the mist”) against the funny, garrulous prose of the Chuang-tzu (“like a bath in maple syrup”- yummy but hard to get out of.)

 

iv) In the Chuang-tzu tao is sometimes used in a clearly negative fashion eg in Ch2:

... “the sage does not work at anything, does not pursue profit, does not dodge harm, does not enjoy being sought after, does not follow the Way, says nothing yet says something, says something yet says nothing, and wanders beyond the dust and grime.” (trans. Watson 1964– emphasis my own).

 

v) Some central themes of the Lao-tzu (most noticeably tzu-jan & wu wei) are effectively absent from the Chaung-tzu and vice versa (death, mutilation, disputation, perspective etc...).

 

 

However the main reason that I have come to doubt that Chuang-tzu is talking of the Tao in the manner of Lao-tzu and other “Taoists”, is that his philosophy can be far better understood if we jettison the presumption that he is (and, of course, it is only a presumption – the idea of a unified school of “Taoism” first appears in texts in the Han period; half a millennia later!).

 

I noted above that the Lao-tzu is not quoted (and Lao-tzu himself barely appears) in the Chaung-tzu. On the other hand one of the most regularly appearing characters is Confucius. In Confucius' writings tao is an important concept; what he is proposing is that if people follow the tao of the early Chou dynasty (a practice of ritual and cultivation of virtues). Also noted above is the fact that Chuang-tzu was clearly familiar with Confucian writings and made liberal use of their characters and stories. Is it not eminently more reasonable to suppose than Chuang-tzu would use tao in the manner of Confucius rather than the manner of Lao-tzu?

 

I think that instead of interpreting tao in the Chaung-tzu as some philosophical entity: Lao-tzu's “the Way” (as in: “The Way which can be the Way is not the constant Way”); we should instead interpret it in a manner far closer to Confucius' understanding of it: that is “a way” (as in: “a butcher's way is to carve”).

 

It also seems to me that such an interpretation makes a good deal of passages significantly more comprehensible (chapter 2 in particular). For example; the passage I quoted above:

... “the sage ... does not follow the Way,... and wanders beyond the dust and grime.”

If my position is accepted we can translate this far better:

... “the sage... does not follow any way... but wanders beyond the dust and grime”

- ie the sage is no beholden to a particular way of doing things (as Mo-tzu, Hui-tzu or Confucius would), but instead wanders along, untouched. By ridding ourselves of the assumption that Chaung-tzu is using tao in a Taoist sense the passage becomes clear. Interestingly the word translated 'wanders' (yu) is used almost as frequently in the Chuang-tzu as tao is (31 to 39) and always in a positive context! It could be argued Chuang-tzu should be seen as a “Yu-ist” - or perhaps better “wanderer” - rather than a “Taoist”.

Edited September 3, 2012 by samwardell

[eye_of_the_storm]

Excellent read, thank you

[Marblehead]

The only thing I will agree to at this point is that Chuang Tzu was not a Laoist.

[rene]

I very much agree with that, Marblehead.

 

***

Sam, thanks for starting this thread, and I agree in general with your ideas above, as described. If you'd be so kind to allow me to wait a bit before contributing in detail... there is an incredible reference book that I'm waiting to receive. I had it a decade ago, but it seems to have "Yu"-ed off somewhere and, in anticipation of this thread, I jumped online a few days ago and ordered its replacement. Should be here relatively soon and then I'll have a whole bunch to say.

 

It might be that Zhuangzi was a Yu-ist indeed! In the style of 'Laoist' and 'Lao-Zhuang'ists - maybe he was just a 'Zhuangist'? Which, as he was Zhuangzi, I not sure how he couldn't be! Playful aside, it might be prudent for us all to recall that this entire body of eastern way - is mostly divided up into little named categories by Western ideas. Chunking things into their own little corners: what is Taoist? Religious? Alchemical? Energetic? Proto-taoist? Philosophical? Laoist? Zhuangist? Yu-ist? might have a similar result as what happened to that poor guy whose neighbors poked holes in him, with good intentions of course, so he could be just like they were...

 

That said, I'm sure No Ideas Will Be Harmed In The Making Of This Thread, and I look forward to sharing a viewpoint I've not yet seen on TaoBums, and especially hearing your take on it.

 

warm regards

Edited September 2, 2012 by rene

[samwardell]

The only thing I will agree to at this point is that Chuang Tzu was not a Laoist.

 

 

It might be that Zhuangzi was a Yu-ist indeed! In the style of 'Laoist' and 'Lao-Zhuang'ists - maybe he was just a 'Zhuangist'? Which, as he was Zhuangzi, I not sure how he couldn't be! Playful aside, it might be prudent for us all to recall that this entire body of eastern way - is mostly divided up into little named categories by Western ideas. Chunking things into their own little corners: what is Taoist? Religious? Alchemical? Energetic? Proto-taoist? Philosophical? Laoist? Zhuangist? Yu-ist? might have a similar result as what happened to that poor guy whose neighbors poked holes in him, with good intentions of course, so he could be just like they were...

 

I have a lot of sympathy for these sentiments; in fact while writing the OP I could hear Chuang Chou sitting on my shoulder cackling wildly as I desperately tried to categorize his work.

 

Having said that, the question of how Chuang-tzu understood tao seems to me an important one; all I am proposing is that we should maybe be less keen to try and read the Taoist's Tao into his work, especially when doing so makes a nonsense of it. Despite this most translations seem to prefer to offer passages which are contradictory or incomprehensible (always under the ever so slightly racist assumption that Chinese philosophy "is not meant to always make sense"!) rather than abandon the hypothesis that Chuang-tzu uses tao in the manner of classical philosophical Taoism (primarily Lao-tzu, Shen Tao and Lieh-tzu). There is a lovely quote by the much missed A C Graham about the dangers of translating the Chuang-tzu:

 

"It is in the best translations that Chuang-tzu suffers a strange mutation into a whimsical, garrulous wiseacre to whose ramblings you listen with half an ear in the confidence that every now and then he will startle you awake with a vivid phrase, a striking aphorism or a marvelous story. But this image of the great Taoist, at once affectionate and profoundly insulting, has no relation to Chuang-tzu or any other writer in the book, no relation to anything except the situation of a translator cracking under the multiple strains of his craft." (Graham 1981 p 31)

Edited September 3, 2012 by samwardell

[Marblehead]

... in fact while writing the OP I could hear Chuang Chou sitting on my shoulder cackling wildly as I desperately tried to categorize his work.

Yes. If we look at only the Inner Chapters, Chapters 1 - 7, it might look like, more than anything else, he was protesting Confucius and the institutions that were developing.

 

However, within the stories one can see his personal philosophy bleeding through, which, I think, was built on very well by his disciples in the Outer Chapters.

 

So I think one could put Chuang Tzu in a basket labelled "Protester", that is, protestor against the establishment. But then too, I think he would fit well in a basket labelled "Free Thinker". But we shouldn't stop there because there is a basket over in the corner labelled "Anarchist" that he would fit in very well if we are to believe what is written in the Miscellaneous Chapters.

 

Anyhow, it should be fun trying to label that dude. Hehehe.

[samwardell]

However, within the stories one can see his personal philosophy bleeding through, which, I think, was built on very well by his disciples in the Outer Chapters.

 

Interesting point; I would agree with you that there is material in the outer chapters which is invaluable to helping us interpret the inner ones.

 

However the situation is complex. There are indeed some areas in which the outer chapters do seem to remain true to the inner ones; skill stories, the importance of 'wandering', the 'fasting of the hsin' etc...

 

There are also some areas which are significantly added too; so the skill stories take on a more metaphysical colour in ch 19, the more spiritual aspects of Chuang-tzu's thought are fleshed out (we see new concepts being used which are absent in the inner chapters: eg 'ties' lei, man's 'nature' hsing, 'stillness' ching etc...).

 

Also some of the concerns of the inner chapters disappear: uselessness, mutilation etc... In particular the mature anti-analytic philosophy of ch 2 almost completely vanishes. [Historically this may not be surprising; as the age of the hundred schools waned philosophical disputation became less common - the kind of analytic philosophy of Hui-tzu and the Mohist Canons completely ceases in Chinese thought not long after the time of Chuang-tzu; so his followers were understandably not that interested in this aspect of his thinking.]

 

Most significantly for this discussion is we do see a change in the use of tao in the outer chapters; in particular we see explicit association of tao and te as related and equally important concepts and we also see that many of the authors of the outer chapters are familiar with the Lao-tzu. In much of the outer chapters tao cleary should be interpreted as Lao-tzu's Tao.

 

So while I agree with you to some extent I think we should still be wary of leaning too heavily on the outer chapters to help interpret the inner ones.

Edited September 3, 2012 by samwardell

[Marblehead]

So while I agree with you to some extent I think we should still be wary of leaning too heavily on the outer chapters to help interpret the inner ones.

Agree. When I first read the Chuang Tzu I read it as one continuous document. I now think that it really should be read in four different reading with four different mind-sets.

 

I will now hold my tongue until after Rene or someone else has posted. I am a bit anxious to see what Rene has to say because it is very difficult to get her to talk about Chuang Tzu as she is (sorry for the label Rene) a Laoist.

 

I am very much looking forward to an excellent discussion here.

[rene]

reposted

Edited September 4, 2012 by rene

[rene]

[...]

In general, as in this passage, Chuang-tzu seems to be taking the side of heaven. The sage is one who 'lets heaven act through them' and does not 'proceed with what belongs to man'. I like to think of this in terms of the outer chapter passage (ch 19) of the waterfall swimmer who just "goes with the flow" or butcher Ting of ch 3 who "goes by what is inherently so".

[...]

 

Okay. It was at least two decades after first reading The Laozi (Feng/English) that I finally broke down and read (most of) Zhuangzi's Inner Chapters (again, Feng/English). Having not read the 'outer chapters' there may well be a difference between the inners and outers regarding connections to The Laozi - or more importantly - that which comes 'through' the words found in The Laozi. I suspect there may well be a difference between the inners and outers, and have a guess as to what that might be, but I really want to check that (soon to arrive) reference before wasting forum's time on a hunch. LOL

 

What I can say now, is the reason I dont care for the ZZ is because it takes the clearly expressed ideas of LZ and warps them into mystical unintelligible barely recognizable tales. Entertaining? You betcha! Do the tales have LZ ideas at the core? Yep. All of them that I've read, anyway. But if one is not already familiar with the elegant simplicity of LZ, will the ideas be recognized in the unnecessarily-complex ZZ? Rarely. And that is my objection to ZZ...especially for seekers of the simple path... including LZ's 'Tao'.

 

warm regards

 

 

 

***

edit: I just received email about the book stating: "Your order has been shipped; expect delivery in 1-2 weeks."

It might come sooner though.

Edited September 4, 2012 by rene

[ChiDragon]

samwardell...

Welcome...!!!

 

May I point out to you that the "Tao" is different to each philosopher.

Tao to Confucius is the morality which is the conducts of the people.

 

Tao to LaoTze is Nature. His philosophy is to follow the course of Nature.

 

Tao to Zhuang Zi is the principle of living and learn to live as a hedonist and libertarian. You are right about ZZ being a "wanderer". Wanderer to ZZ means to be a man free of any restriction rather than traveling around the world.

 

 

PS....

If Zhuang Zi is not a Taoist, then nobody is.

Edited September 5, 2012 by ChiDragon

[samwardell]

What I can say now, is the reason I dont care for the ZZ is because it takes the clearly expressed ideas of LZ and warps them into mystical unintelligible barely recognizable tales. Entertaining? You betcha! Do the tales have LZ ideas at the core? Yep. All of them that I've read, anyway. But if one is not already familiar with the elegant simplicity of LZ, will the ideas be recognized in the unnecessarily-complex ZZ? Rarely. And that is my objection to ZZ...especially for seekers of the simple path... including LZ's 'Tao'.

 

Very much my first impression of the Chuang-tzu as well. For a long time my only translation of the Chuang-tzu was a scrappy little version of the inner chapters by Cleary (which is not without its strengths but overly interpreted in the light of meditative practice). A few years and some better translations later my stance has completely changed.

 

The differences between the Chaung-tzu and the Lao-tzu; on my reading, are profound. I will very briefly try and sketch some out. I apologise that my reading of the Lao-tzu is crude, it is a text I am still very unsure of and certainly it is far richer than the single paragraph treatment I'm about to give it.

 

The two most important philosophical concepts in the Lao-tzu are Tao and Te - these concepts are very closely related. The Tao is a mysterious - inexpressible concept - the 'attainment' of (or 'return to') is the goal of the sage and the characteristic of Te. This is achieved through a philosophy of action called wu wei which is attached to a notion of 'naturalness' (tzu jan). This all operates within a cosmology of a natural world (tian) of fluid matter/energy (ch'i) driven by intertwined dual forces yin yang. It is also a pragmatic philosophy, primarily of leadership, accentuating the receptive and flexible properties of yin over the domineering and rigid properties of yang.

 

While a 'skillful' translator can bend the text of the Chuang-tzu inner chapters to match up with this scheme it is in these translations that the Chuang-tzu is at its most confused and confusing. My opinion is that, in reality, there is a completely different focus. I would contend that, with the exception of the cosmological scheme and the idea of 'naturalness' (though the phrase tzu jan is not used), most of the above 'Laoist' philosophy is absent. Instead the Chuang-tzu is primarily writing against analytic philosophy [the Mohist, the Sophists, and the Confucians] and writing for tao-practice (as in the skilful practice of butcher Ting, not the Tao of Lao-tzu) exemplified in the notion of "wandering beyond". While the Lao-tzu makes the occasional disparaging remark about philosophers, the first and second chapters of the Chaung-tzu represent perhaps the single greatest work of 'anti-philosophy' ever written, not only is its critique devastating in content it is presented with humour and irony. In my experience it is without parallel in world literature (let alone the Lao-tzu).

 

Perhaps some of this is a difference in taste. I came to Chinese philosophy from having studied analytic philosophy; in this sense Chuang-tzu is more personally valuable to me. I remember a piece of graffiti on the toilet wall at my uni "the difference between this place and a philosophy degree is here you come in full of shit." Chuang-tzu's the best laxative I know of!

 

If you would like to re-read the Chaung-tzu I would recommend Watson's translation, the man was a brilliant sinologist and his translation is based upon a Laoist understanding of Taoism. My personal favorite is A C Graham's Chuang-tzu The Inner Chapters (actually over 3/4 of the book) however it is a very 'academic' work with all of the issues that entails.

Edited September 5, 2012 by samwardell

[samwardell]

samwardell...

Welcome...!!!

 

Thanks! Have to say, of all the forums I have spent time on this, far and away, is the one I have felt most welcome on You all seem to be lovely people.

 

Tao to Zhuang Zi is the principle of living and learn to live as a hedonist and libertarian.

 

Don't agree with this at all. There is some hedonist philosophy found, almost exclusively, in the chapters 28-31 ('Yeilding the throne', 'Robber Chih', 'Old fisherman') but it is a pretty minor voice in the text as a whole and, as far as I can see, completely absent from the inner chapters. I suppose at a stretch you might say that the first half of Ch 4 (the dialogues on dealing with those in power) have a hedonist flavour; but the ultimate advice given - the 'fasting of the hsin' and 'roaming freely inside the cage' is a long way from the philosophy of hedonism (compare to the great hedonist Yang Chu's maxim "If by plucking one hair, I was to benefit the whole world I would not do it.") However even if we accepted a hedonist strain in the Chuang-tzu's inner chapters it is not associated with his use of the word tao. In fact following the logic of Chapter 2 hedonism itself would sure be merely one of many taos and no more true to Chuang-tzu than the taos of Mo-tzu, Hui-tzu or Confucius.

 

I think the largest block of evidence that the author(s) of the inner chapters was not a hedonist is the rejection of the hedonist principle of preservation of life found in the first half of chp 6. Here death is clearly approached in the manner of mere change (hua) and approach that explicitly involves the rejection of "selfishness". This rejection of selfishness and laissez-faire attitude to death is directly opposed to the philosophy of the Chinese hedonists.

 

Similarly I am not convinced he was a libertarian. I would say the author of chapters 8-10 (a very distinctive voice, and definitely not the author of the inner chapters) does have an anarcho-libertarian attitude. However the inner chapters' seem grudgingly supportive of (or at least not strongly opposed to) state institutions (see 1st half of ch 4). Mostly though the inner chapters attitude towards politics seems to me to be one of extreme disinterest. A quote from ch 7 (Graham 1981 p 95):

 

Heaven-based roamed on the south side of Mount Vast, and came to the bank of River Limpid. Happening to meet a man without a name he asked of him:

"Permit me to inquire how one rules the empire."

"Away! You're a bumpkin! What a dreary thing to talk about."

 

PS....

If Zhuang Zi is not a Taoist, then nobody is.

 

I think marblehead's interpretation of my post, that I am saying Chaung-tzu is not a Laoist is probably a better way of putting it. My 'dramatic' topic title aside, really all I am proposing is that the interpretation of tao in the inner chapters as the same as / close to the Tao of Lao-tzu is misleading, and we can make far more sense of it if we adopt an interpretation closer to (though not necessarily identical with) Confucius' use of the term.

Edited September 5, 2012 by samwardell

[Marblehead]

Hi Sam,

 

Nice posts, those last two.

 

I have stated on this board a couple of times that I feel that Taoist Philosophy is incomplete if only the TTC or The Chuang Tzu is used as a base for the philosophy. I feel that the two support each other and with the two we have a more complete philosophy that we can more effeciently use in our present day life.

 

I don't have a preference as I value both equally. Kinda' like being able to see both sides of a coin.

 

So at this point I will make a further statement that I believe that The Chuang Tzu (the book) is an essential Taoist text.

[dawei]

Most significantly for this discussion is we do see a change in the use of tao in the outer chapters; in particular we see explicit association of tao and te as related and equally important concepts and we also see that many of the authors of the outer chapters are familiar with the Lao-tzu. In much of the outer chapters tao cleary should be interpreted as Lao-tzu's Tao.

And as you pointed out, or may of meant indirectly, it is in the outer chapters we get a quote of Lao... nice topic.

[rene]

Sam, hi

 

What a wonderful reply! I've not read any of the philosophies (or much else) so what you bring is a virtual buffet of ideas. Thank you for that.

 

You may be right in all that you say; here's my take. It seems I'm not only 'Laoist', I'm a purist. LOL If it's not in the Laozi, it's not in the Laozi. Simple as that. Since you like stories, here's one for ya. (-:

 

***

"Tao" is an apple. The Laozi paints a picture of the apple, does an astonishinly good job at it, including saying it's not the apple itself! (The apple that can be eaten is not a painted apple... heheh) Then, someone (ZZ, Taoists, Confucianists & others) comes along and takes LZ's apple and grinds it all up into applesauce, adding spices like ch'i and yin yang (and varying ideas of Te).. and later - other ingredients and even other fruits (translator bias) are added until LZ's original apple is only a small part of the gruel and its natural taste relatively hidden.

 

***

Some of the confusion you speak of in post-LZ texts are undoubtedly sourced as you've conveyed. Some might also be from authors attempts to reconstruct the ideas into something more 'apple-shaped'. I don't know. I do feel that all the chopping and adding the other ingredients (post LZ) is fine! Not everyone has the same tastes and this way there's something for everyone. (-: But it's no longer LZ's simple apple.

 

Regarding: "I apologise that my reading of the Lao-tzu is crude, it is a text I am still very unsure of and certainly it is far richer than the single paragraph treatment I'm about it give it..." ~ It's understandable that one would be unsure of the Laozi, imo. Most of the translations I've read all try to change the flavour of the LZ's apple itself to support the addition of later ingredients or perhaps their own preferences... so when you say the LZ is "far richer", yes, and it very much depends on who the "cook" was.

 

So.. I will enjoy watching you and others try to link (or show no link) between various aspects of the dishes served; and thanks for your recommendation of Watson's translation of the Chuang-tzu! If I ever get tired of plain old apples, I may give it a try. (-:

 

 

warm regards

 

 

 

Very much my first impression of the Chuang-tzu as well. For a long time my only translation of the Chuang-tzu was a scrappy little version of the inner chapters by Cleary (which is not without its strengths but overly interpreted in the light of meditative practice). A few years and some better translations later my stance has completely changed.

 

The differences between the Chaung-tzu and the Lao-tzu; on my reading, are profound. I will very briefly try and sketch some out. I apologise that my reading of the Lao-tzu is crude, it is a text I am still very unsure of and certainly it is far richer than the single paragraph treatment I'm about to give it.

 

The two most important philosophical concepts in the Lao-tzu are Tao and Te - these concepts are very closely related. The Tao is a mysterious - inexpressible concept - the 'attainment' of (or 'return to') is the goal of the sage and the characteristic of Te. This is achieved through a philosophy of action called wu wei which is attached to a notion of 'naturalness' (tzu jan). This all operates within a cosmology of a natural world (tian) of fluid matter/energy (ch'i) driven by intertwined dual forces yin yang. It is also a pragmatic philosophy, primarily of leadership, accentuating the receptive and flexible properties of yin over the domineering and rigid properties of yang.

 

While a 'skillful' translator can bend the text of the Chuang-tzu inner chapters to match up with this scheme it is in these translations that the Chuang-tzu is at its most confused and confusing. My opinion is that, in reality, there is a completely different focus. I would contend that, with the exception of the cosmological scheme and the idea of 'naturalness' (though the phrase tzu jan is not used), most of the above 'Laoist' philosophy is absent. Instead the Chuang-tzu is primarily writing against analytic philosophy [the Mohist, the Sophists, and the Confucians] and writing for tao-practice (as in the skilful practice of butcher Ting, not the Tao of Lao-tzu) exemplified in the notion of "wandering beyond". While the Lao-tzu makes the occasional disparaging remark about philosophers, the first and second chapters of the Chaung-tzu represent perhaps the single greatest work of 'anti-philosophy' ever written, not only is its critique devastating in content it is presented with humour and irony. In my experience it is without parallel in world literature (let alone the Lao-tzu).

 

Perhaps some of this is a difference in taste. I came to Chinese philosophy from having studied analytic philosophy; in this sense Chuang-tzu is more personally valuable to me. I remember a piece of graffiti on the toilet wall at my uni "the difference between this place and a philosophy degree is here you come in full of shit." Chuang-tzu's the best laxative I know of!

 

If you would like to re-read the Chaung-tzu I would recommend Watson's translation, the man was a brilliant sinologist and his translation is based upon a Laoist understanding of Taoism. My personal favorite is A C Graham's Chuang-tzu The Inner Chapters (actually over 3/4 of the book) however it is a very 'academic' work with all of the issues that entails.

 

edit to put the story in color (-:

Edited September 5, 2012 by rene

[samwardell]

So at this point I will make a further statement that I believe that The Chuang Tzu (the book) is an essential Taoist text.

 

I would agree that it the Chuang-tzu has become an essential Taoist text, however this rests upon the process of synchronising the views of Lao-tzu and Chuang-tzu, a process which starts with the outer chapters of the Chuang-tzu and is complete by the time that the Lieh-tzu (which explicitly draws from both texts) was written (c.200AD). My problem is that this synchronisation, while undoubtedly of enormous cultural and spiritual value, leaves us with a skewed view of the inner chapters.

 

 

"Tao" is an apple. The Laozi paints a picture of the apple, does an astonishinly good job at it, including saying it's not the apple itself! (The apple that can be eaten is not a painted apple... heheh) Then, someone (ZZ, Taoists, Confucianists & others) comes along and takes LZ's apple and grinds it all up into applesauce, adding spices like ch'i and yin yang (and varying ideas of Te).. and later - other ingredients and even other fruits (translator bias) are added until LZ's original apple is only a small part of the gruel and its natural taste relatively hidden.

 

This made my day! Also led me to spend a very pleasant evening re-reading the Lao-tzu…

 

I suppose my contention is that the Lao-tzu and Chuang-tzu are not related as ‘apple and applesauce’ but as ‘apple and pear’ – seemingly similar but at bottom very different fruits...

[Marblehead]

I would agree that it the Chuang-tzu has become an essential Taoist text, however this rests upon the process of synchronising the views of Lao-tzu and Chuang-tzu, a process which starts with the outer chapters of the Chuang-tzu and is complete by the time that the Lieh-tzu (which explicitly draws from both texts) was written (c.200AD). My problem is that this synchronisation, while undoubtedly of enormous cultural and spiritual value, leaves us with a skewed view of the inner chapters.

Personally, I don't like dividing The Chuang Tzu into the three separte Chapter groups. Yes, the Conversations could be a stand-alone section but I think that one can get a much fuller view of the development of Taoism post Lao Tzu if all the Chapter are read together as one single document.

 

I did a series last year titled "Taoist Philosophy" here but the threads are all over the place now and very difficult to find because of how the new board program linked threads.

 

The biggest differences between the TTC and The Chuang Tzu are regarding government and metaphysics. The root philosophy remains constant between the two books.

[Stosh]

"The biggest differences between the TTC and The Chuang Tzu are regarding government and metaphysics. The root philosophy remains constant between the two books. "

 

Just to be explicit could you say what that root is in your opinion?

Stosh

[rene]

I suppose my contention is that the Lao-tzu and Chuang-tzu are not related as ‘apple and applesauce’ but as ‘apple and pear’ – seemingly similar but at bottom very different fruits...

 

Sam, yes! Especially as at that time, if memory serves, The Laozi was already being 're-interpreted'...oh hell. I gotta wait for that reference book. Hope nobody will mind later additions to this thread, if it's cooled off by then. I think there's quite a bit in it that supports your premise.

 

warm regards

[Marblehead]

Just to be explicit could you say what that root is in your opinion?

Stosh

Tao and its natural processes. Tao here to mean all things and all non-things of the universe.

[ChiDragon]

My 'dramatic' topic title aside, really all I am proposing is that the interpretation of tao in the inner chapters as the same as / close to the Tao of Lao-tzu is misleading, and we can make far more sense of it if we adopt an interpretation closer to (though not necessarily identical with) Confucius' use of the term.

 

LaoTze, Zhuang Tze and Confucius are three different philosophers. Don't you think that their interpretations should be far apart from each other....??? Shouldn't there be a great distinction between them....???

 

Can you tell that in Zhuang Tze's inner chapters has nothing but opposite views against Confucius......???

 

How did you come to such a conclusion that: "we can make far more sense of it if we adopt an interpretation closer to (though not necessarily identical with) Confucius' use of the term."....?????

Edited September 7, 2012 by ChiDragon

[rene]

LaoTze, Zhuang Tze and Confucius are three different philosophers. Don't you think that their interpretations should be far apart from each other....??? Shouldn't there be a great distinction between them....???

 

Can you tell that in Zhuang Tze's inner chapters has nothing but opposite views against Confucius......???

 

How did you come to such a conclusion that: "we can make far more sense of it if we adopt an interpretation closer to (though not necessarily identical with) Confucius' use of the term."....?????

 

Maybe Sam came to that conclusion because both ZZ's and Confucius' focus is on the actions of humans [Like you said: Can you tell that in Zhuang Tze's inner chapters has nothing but opposite views against Confucius......???] whereas the focus of LZ is more on the interactions between humans & tao. In other words, even though coming from opposite directions - their interpretations and methods of approach might be more similar to each other - than either are to LZ.

 

Or it might be another reason and I look forward to hearing Sam elaborate. (-: Never mind me, I'm just butting in while waiting for the book.

[Marblehead]

Or it might be another reason and I look forward to hearing Sam elaborate. (-: Never mind me, I'm just butting in while waiting for the book.

Hehehe. This thread will be kept alive well after you have received your book.

 

In fact, I need to post another Section of Chuang Tzu's Chapter 7 so that we will have the Inner Chapters available when we get deeper into the discussion and comparison of Chuang Tzu with Lao Tzu and Confucius.

 

I can see where we will need to define how the three philosophers understood "Tao" and how they each used it in their philosophy.

[ChiDragon]

Definition for Tao.

 

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