Meeting of Confucius and Old Tan in the Chuang-tzu

[penfold]

I’ve recently be re-reading A.C. Graham’s wonderful translation of the Chuang-tzu. Unlike any other English translation I have come across he orders the text thematically, only preserving the original order of the inner chapters and those chapters which were clearly written as complete works. While some purists might object, the text is one that has clearly be re-ordered many times in its history (often to the point of incomprehensibility), so I, for one, find Graham’s work both proper and very helpful.

 

In his translation he groups together seven extracts dealing with the meeting of Confucius and Old Tan (identified as Lao-tzu). These are expansions on a Taoist tradition that Confucius took instruction from the author of the Lao-tzu and even converted to Taoism himself. The story seems based on an earlier Confucian story found in “The Questions of Tseng-tzu” in the Book of Rites where Confucius consults Old Tan on points of ritual. While Old Tan is mentioned in the inner chapters of Chuang-tzu he is not identified as the author of the Lao-tzu (a book the author of the inner chapters was probably unaware of and never references) and is a relatively minor character.

 

The cycle of stories detailing the meeting of Confucius and Old Tan are found in Chapters 12, 13, 14 and 21 of the Chaung-tzu. There is good evidence that they should be dated as a very late addition to the Chuang-tzu – probably Han dynasty (later than 200BC) as they reference the ‘six classics’ which were not canonised till the Han and to the ‘twelve classics’ which are the six plus Han era apocrypha. So it is a reasonable assumption that the author(s) of these passages are Han dynasty Taoists whose aim is to establish intellectual priority for Taoism. However what is important is that these are the earliest detailed accounts of their meeting; earlier accounts do little more than mention Confucius took instruction from Old Tan.

 

What struck me reading them again was this. In the passages Old Tan seems far closer to the philosophy found in the inner chapters of the Chuang-tzu than that found in the Lao-tzu. So much so that rather than seeing these stories as fictional conversations between the author of the Lao-tzu and Confucius it is far more profitable to see them as fictional conversations between the author of the inner chapters of the Chuang-tzu and Confucius.

 

1) The Lao-tzu is never quoted or referenced. The closest it comes is one passage from Ch 14 where an analysis of wu-wei is given – though it is analysed in terms of Chuang-tzu’s vocabulary of Hsiao you yu (“rambling without a destination” – the title of the first of the inner chapters).

 

2) In the stories Old Tan constantly refers to specific examples from nature: “the birds and the beasts flocking together”, “the snow-goose wants no daily bath to stay white, the rook no daily inking”, “In fruits and berries there is a pattern”. Etc… This use of detailed observations of natural processes is a recurrent theme in the inner chapters of the Chuang-tzu but barely features as a motif in the Lao-tzu.

 

3) There is a strong focus on “rambling” (yu) – a word that occurs more frequently that tao in the inner chapters; but is rarely mentioned (if at all) in the Lao-tzu.

 

4) Some images are taken directly from the inner chapters: “fish … forgetting each other in the … Lakes” is taken from Ch 7; “motionless as withered wood” which is taken from the opening of Ch 2. Manipulation of the heart (hsin) and association with stillness which is taken from Ch2 as well.; reference to the sophist Kung-Sun Lung (the “hard and white”) also from Ch 2.

 

5) Discussion comparing the rigidness of Confucianism to the spontaneity of Taoism; which, while present in the Lao-tzu, fits far better with language and themes of inner chapter 3.

 

A detailed example may help. In one of the stories of their meeting (ch 14) Confucius bemoans that he cannot get a prince to follow his expositions on the rule of the Chou and Shou. Old Tan responds:

 

What you speak of now is still the footprints, and the footprints are where the shoes passed, they are no shoes. The white fish-hawk impregnates when the couple stare at each other with unwavering pupils, insects when the male calls from the wind above … The natures of things cannot be exchanged … the Way cannot be blocked up. If it coincides with the Way no course is unallowable

 

None of this really matches the themes found in the Lao-tzu, however it is pregnant with images and themes from the inner chapters, from the use of examples from nature, to the dismissal of using historical examples to help discern the way (see, for example, the speech of the Madman of Ch’u – inner ch 4), to the use of the sophist term ‘unallowable’ (see, for example, Ch2 where mohist and sophist ‘disputation’ of the ‘allowable’ and ‘unallowable’ is severely critiqued).

 

The story concludes with Confucius returning to Old Tan and stating:

 

I have grasped it! Crows and magpies hatch, the fish blow out foam, the tiny waisted metamorphose… Too long I have failed to be a man fellow to things in their transformations, and if one fails to be that how can one transform men?

 

Again we have the converted Confucius talking in images and terms which are reminiscent of (and in one case – fish blowing foam – taken directly from) the inner chapters of the Chuang-tzu.

 

Why should any of this matter?

 

I think we can draw a number of conclusions:

 

i) As late as the Han dynasty there was a tradition of Old Tan as the Taoist who talked down to Confucius (and converted him to Taoism) which was separate from the tradition of Old Tan as the author of the Lao-tzu. The author(s) of these passages does not reference the Lao-tzu at all.

 

ii) That for some Han dynasty Taoists the philosophy of the inner chapters of the Chaung-tzu with its focus on natural models and the concept of ‘wandering’ was seen as the apex of Taoist thinking rather than the Lao-tzu.

 

iii) It adds weight to the hypothesis that the Lao-tzu’s author(s) was unknown and the text was only attributed to Old Tan (Lao-tzu) in the Han Dynasty.

 

iv) That Old Tan starts out as a Confucian character (from the Book of Rites) he is then morphed into a subversive Taoist character by Chuang-tzu in the inner chapters (a trick he plays a lot, see also Chieh Yu the Madman of Ch’u and Ch’u Po-yu the wise man of Wey – both originally Confucian characters). Only several hundred years later, in the Han dynasty when Taoists and Confucians were battling for intellectual supremacy was Old Tan finally turned into the mythical author of Lao-tzu – a canny move as Old Tan had already been established as the Taoist hero whom Confucius had taken instruction from.

[Marblehead]

Nice. Thanks for sharing.

 

If the dating of these individuals is accurate (as I understand them) I think it is possible that there was a person, Old Tan, junior of Lao Tzu, but senior of Confucius.

 

And I agree that there is a lot of difference between the philosophy of Lao Tzu and that of Chuang Tzu.

 

(I don't have Graham's translation but ordering the outer and Misc chapters by theme seem perfectly acceptable to me.)

[dawei]

This may also be of interest: to read Galvany's Death and Ritual Wailing in Early China: Around the Funeral of Lao Dan

 

http://www.academia.edu/2549850/Death_and_ritual_wailing_in_early_China_around_the_funeral_of_Lao_Dan

[flowing hands]

I’ve recently be re-reading A.C. Graham’s wonderful translation of the Chuang-tzu. Unlike any other English translation I have come across he orders the text thematically, only preserving the original order of the inner chapters and those chapters which were clearly written as complete works. While some purists might object, the text is one that has clearly be re-ordered many times in its history (often to the point of incomprehensibility), so I, for one, find Graham’s work both proper and very helpful.

 

In his translation he groups together seven extracts dealing with the meeting of Confucius and Old Tan (identified as Lao-tzu). These are expansions on a Taoist tradition that Confucius took instruction from the author of the Lao-tzu and even converted to Taoism himself. The story seems based on an earlier Confucian story found in “The Questions of Tseng-tzu” in the Book of Rites where Confucius consults Old Tan on points of ritual. While Old Tan is mentioned in the inner chapters of Chuang-tzu he is not identified as the author of the Lao-tzu (a book the author of the inner chapters was probably unaware of and never references) and is a relatively minor character.

 

The cycle of stories detailing the meeting of Confucius and Old Tan are found in Chapters 12, 13, 14 and 21 of the Chaung-tzu. There is good evidence that they should be dated as a very late addition to the Chuang-tzu – probably Han dynasty (later than 200BC) as they reference the ‘six classics’ which were not canonised till the Han and to the ‘twelve classics’ which are the six plus Han era apocrypha. So it is a reasonable assumption that the author(s) of these passages are Han dynasty Taoists whose aim is to establish intellectual priority for Taoism. However what is important is that these are the earliest detailed accounts of their meeting; earlier accounts do little more than mention Confucius took instruction from Old Tan.

 

What struck me reading them again was this. In the passages Old Tan seems far closer to the philosophy found in the inner chapters of the Chuang-tzu than that found in the Lao-tzu. So much so that rather than seeing these stories as fictional conversations between the author of the Lao-tzu and Confucius it is far more profitable to see them as fictional conversations between the author of the inner chapters of the Chuang-tzu and Confucius.

 

1) The Lao-tzu is never quoted or referenced. The closest it comes is one passage from Ch 14 where an analysis of wu-wei is given – though it is analysed in terms of Chuang-tzu’s vocabulary of Hsiao you yu (“rambling without a destination” – the title of the first of the inner chapters).

 

2) In the stories Old Tan constantly refers to specific examples from nature: “the birds and the beasts flocking together”, “the snow-goose wants no daily bath to stay white, the rook no daily inking”, “In fruits and berries there is a pattern”. Etc… This use of detailed observations of natural processes is a recurrent theme in the inner chapters of the Chuang-tzu but barely features as a motif in the Lao-tzu.

 

3) There is a strong focus on “rambling” (yu) – a word that occurs more frequently that tao in the inner chapters; but is rarely mentioned (if at all) in the Lao-tzu.

 

4) Some images are taken directly from the inner chapters: “fish … forgetting each other in the … Lakes” is taken from Ch 7; “motionless as withered wood” which is taken from the opening of Ch 2. Manipulation of the heart (hsin) and association with stillness which is taken from Ch2 as well.; reference to the sophist Kung-Sun Lung (the “hard and white”) also from Ch 2.

 

5) Discussion comparing the rigidness of Confucianism to the spontaneity of Taoism; which, while present in the Lao-tzu, fits far better with language and themes of inner chapter 3.

 

A detailed example may help. In one of the stories of their meeting (ch 14) Confucius bemoans that he cannot get a prince to follow his expositions on the rule of the Chou and Shou. Old Tan responds:

 

What you speak of now is still the footprints, and the footprints are where the shoes passed, they are no shoes. The white fish-hawk impregnates when the couple stare at each other with unwavering pupils, insects when the male calls from the wind above … The natures of things cannot be exchanged … the Way cannot be blocked up. If it coincides with the Way no course is unallowable

 

None of this really matches the themes found in the Lao-tzu, however it is pregnant with images and themes from the inner chapters, from the use of examples from nature, to the dismissal of using historical examples to help discern the way (see, for example, the speech of the Madman of Ch’u – inner ch 4), to the use of the sophist term ‘unallowable’ (see, for example, Ch2 where mohist and sophist ‘disputation’ of the ‘allowable’ and ‘unallowable’ is severely critiqued).

 

The story concludes with Confucius returning to Old Tan and stating:

 

I have grasped it! Crows and magpies hatch, the fish blow out foam, the tiny waisted metamorphose… Too long I have failed to be a man fellow to things in their transformations, and if one fails to be that how can one transform men?

 

Again we have the converted Confucius talking in images and terms which are reminiscent of (and in one case – fish blowing foam – taken directly from) the inner chapters of the Chuang-tzu.

 

Why should any of this matter?

 

I think we can draw a number of conclusions:

 

i) As late as the Han dynasty there was a tradition of Old Tan as the Taoist who talked down to Confucius (and converted him to Taoism) which was separate from the tradition of Old Tan as the author of the Lao-tzu. The author(s) of these passages does not reference the Lao-tzu at all.

 

ii) That for some Han dynasty Taoists the philosophy of the inner chapters of the Chaung-tzu with its focus on natural models and the concept of ‘wandering’ was seen as the apex of Taoist thinking rather than the Lao-tzu.

 

iii) It adds weight to the hypothesis that the Lao-tzu’s author(s) was unknown and the text was only attributed to Old Tan (Lao-tzu) in the Han Dynasty.

 

iv) That Old Tan starts out as a Confucian character (from the Book of Rites) he is then morphed into a subversive Taoist character by Chuang-tzu in the inner chapters (a trick he plays a lot, see also Chieh Yu the Madman of Ch’u and Ch’u Po-yu the wise man of Wey – both originally Confucian characters). Only several hundred years later, in the Han dynasty when Taoists and Confucians were battling for intellectual supremacy was Old Tan finally turned into the mythical author of Lao-tzu – a canny move as Old Tan had already been established as the Taoist hero whom Confucius had taken instruction from.

 

 

This of course is the trouble. One can delve into ancient manuscripts, oral tradition etc. and uncover actually someone else s version. Ancient Chinese of Li Erh's time had differing meanings to the modern and I do believe there are many words missing.

My name 'Flowing Hands' hasn't got an equivalent character to describe it in modern Chinese. One could use words to write the 'hands' that 'move' or 'flow', but that would be completely wrong. For it is the energy that is within the hands that flow and move according to the Dao, which would be nearer the right meaning. In Daoist adepts a name was given that described a person whose hands moved like this in ancient Chinese. Since such specialist words have been lost, it doesn't exist anymore. So we have the same for ancient history and text, one cannot say for sure what was what. But what I can tell you is that both Li Erh was a real person and so was Chuang tzu. Li Erh's DDJ was the culmination of many Daoist ideas that already existed and were common knowledge amongst Daoist adepts and masters of that era. Li Erh with his clear and precise mind was able to put these down and many of his own ideas that were not of that understanding. Although not all of the ideas were his, he definitely wrote them down and they were given a title. But he told me that he entitled his writings as 'the sacred writings of the way and its heart', not 'the way and its power'.

 

Best advice is to be very careful in translating and interpreting ancient texts!

[penfold]

This may also be of interest: to read Galvany's Death and Ritual Wailing in Early China: Around the Funeral of Lao Dan

 

http://www.academia.edu/2549850/Death_and_ritual_wailing_in_early_China_around_the_funeral_of_Lao_Dan

 

 

Thanks.

[penfold]

... But what I can tell you is that both Li Erh was a real person and so was Chuang tzu. ...

[...]

... Best advice is to be very careful in translating and interpreting ancient texts!

 

I could not agree more that these text should be read with care.

 

My point, having spent some time with these texts, is that in the Chuang-tzu's inner chapters we can find a unique and brilliant voice, which traditionally has been attributed to a man called Chuang Chou - in fact the historical identity of the author interests me little, it is content that counts. However, it seems to me that it is this voice we find in these accounts of meetings between Confucius and Old Tan rather than any of the voices we can hear in the Lao-tzu.

 

As for whether Li Erh exists or was the author/compiler of the Lao-tzu I claim no special knowledge. What I would point out is that when Ssu-ma Chi'en wrote the Shih Chi in the first century BC (the erliest identification we have if Li Erh and his identification as Lao-tzu) the author also mentions that possibly he's wrong and the identity of Lao-tzu could be Lao Lia Tzu who came from a completely different time & part of China. Ssu ma Chi'en sums up "The world is unable to know where the truth lies." It seems, if you'll forgive me; a little bold for you to be claiming, a couple of millennia later, to know exactly that.

Edited April 27, 2013 by penfold

[flowing hands]

[...]

 

I could not agree more that these text should be read with care.

 

My point, having spent some time with these texts, is that in the Chuang-tzu's inner chapters we can find a unique and brilliant voice, which traditionally has been attributed to a man called Chuang Chou - in fact the historical identity of the author interests me little, it is content that counts. However, it seems to me that it is this voice we find in these accounts of meetings between Confucius and Old Tan rather than any of the voices we can hear in the Lao-tzu.

 

As for whether Li Erh exists or was the author/compiler of the Lao-tzu I claim no special knowledge. What I would point out is that when Ssu-ma Chi'en wrote the Shih Chi in the first century BC (the erliest identification we have if Li Erh and his identification as Lao-tzu) the author also mentions that possibly he's wrong and the identity of Lao-tzu could be Lao Lia Tzu who came from a completely different time & part of China. Ssu ma Chi'en sums up "The world is unable to know where the truth lies." It seems, if you'll forgive me; a little bold for you to be claiming, a couple of millennia later, to know exactly that.

 

For me its quite easy really, for being a trad. Daoist shaman I have begged Li Erh and Chuang tzu to come to me. Li Erh has been my teacher for nearly thirty years along with Huang Lao Xian Shi, Hua Tuo Xian Shi and Chi Tien Da Shen. So the question of whether Li Erh is a real person to me has never been in question. He is not a Daoist say like the Monkey God who knows hundreds of different martial arts etc. and draws holy fu's, although Li Erh can do it and has done it for me on many occasions. Nor does he really specialize in exorcism like the Monkey God does or Huang Lao Xian Shi, for instance who are renowned for it. But he specializes really in the path of true enlightenment, which is where his sacred writings can lead us.

 

The meeting of Li Erh and Confucius may be of interest to scholars of today, but I would say of very little interest to Li Erh. It is very rare for Li Erh to come to trad. shamans amongst the sects. in Asia. I met a couple when I was in Malaysia and they said in all the years they had been practicing, he had only come once to them. Li Erh generally leaves his bond brothers/ sisters of the particular sect to teach and go to shamans.

 

When I mean bond brothers/sisters I mean other Immortal masters of the sect.

 

If you go on my site, there is a vid. of me begging for the Immortal master to draw the fa fu, fa Shui. Ie to hold my arms and draw and transmit their power through me. The film in question sees the Monkey God come and do this. The Monkey God I would say is my primary teacher out of the three, although I am most honored if any of the Immortal masters come.

 

So you will see that if I beg Li Erh to come to me and he comes, I can ask him about many things, that's how I can be so assured.

[lienshan]

However, it seems to me that it is this voice we find in these accounts of meetings between Confucius and Old Tan

rather than any of the voices we can hear in the Lao-tzu.

 

An interesting point of view ... please write a little more about that ... I'm very curious

[penfold]

 

 

An interesting point of view ... please write a little more about that ... I'm very curious

 

Okay, first off I will lay out one broad assumption: that the inner chapters of the Chuang-tzu are, by and large, representative of a single author - whom I am happy to call 'Chuang-tzu'. I think we have pretty good reasons to assume this but I won't detail why for the sake of space. For ease I will refer to the text of inner chapters of the Chuang-tzu by using the italicized form Chuang-tzu.

 

It seems to me that there is something idiosyncratic about this author, he has concerns and themes that we don't find elsewhere in Chinese thought of the Warring States period and certainly not in the Lao-tzu. These themes are almost too varied to draw up a complete list but here are five of the dominant ideas which are characteristic of the Chuang-tzu. I will re-iterate this again at the end but none of these themes are found anywhere in the Lao-tzu:

 

1 Focus on yu 遊 - wandering/roaming:

 

This character appears in the Chaung-tzu almost as frequently as the character Tao (at least 30 times by my count). There are a couple - but only a couple - of instances when it is used in the 'normal' sense of to wander about physically. However the vast majority of uses have broader importance. In particularly the theme of 'wandering beyond/outside of' normal ways of thinking, here are two examples:

 

...he rides the vapour of the clouds, yokes flying dragons to his chariot, and raoms beyond the four seas... - Ch 1 (this phrase 'roaming beyond the four seas' is repeated in Ch 2.)

 

"They are the sort that roam beyond the guidelines," said Confucius, "I am the sort that roams within the guidelines." - Ch 6

 

By my count there are as many as 10 uses of 'roams beyond/outside of'. The use of roaming is also, on at least three occasions, explicitly linked to the process of thinking - using the 'heart' (hsin 心). eg "...let the heart roam with other things..." - Ch 4.

 

It is also linked to the activity of sages: "where-ever the sage roams..." - Ch 5; [Hsu Yu said] "how are you going to roam that free and easy take-any-turn-you -please path?" - Ch 6 ;"Become wholly identified with the limitless and roam where there is no foreboding of anything" - Ch 7.

 

2 Use of specific examples from nature:

 

The Chuang-tzu makes repeated use of natural examples to back up his points everything. From "fish forgetting each other in the lakes" (a phrase actually repeated in the Old Tan / Confucius dialogues) to the extraordinary speech of Wang Ni in Ch2, the whole of the Chuang-tzu is replete with examples drawn from nature. There are so many examples of this that I will not waste time quoting them. However what is particularly noticeable is that on the two occasions in the Chuang-tzu we are given direct 'quotes' from the man himself he makes use of such natural examples:

 

In conversation with Hui tzu he says "Haven't you ever seen a wild cat or weasel? It lurks crouching low ... But the Yak now, which is a big as a cloud hanging from the sky ..." - Ch 1.

 

Similarly in many of the stories about the man Chuang-tzu from the outer + miscellaneous chapters we find this theme again and again - see, for example, the story of Chuang-tzu hunting Ch 20, his rejection of office Ch 32 (also quoted Ch 63 Shih-chi), his attempt to borrow grain from the Marquis of of Chien-ho Ch 26, his discussion on uselessness with disciples Ch 20 etc... It seems that those writing about the man Chuang-tzu remembered his use of examples drawn from nature almost more than any other aspect of his teaching (and it is notable that given the commonality of this motif in the above stories how divergent some of their philosophy is, take for example the Yangist overtones of the hunting passage vs the Synchretist flavour of his discussion with disciples.)

 

3 The use of uslessness:

 

Of all of these main themes this is the one which seems wholly unique to the Chuang-tzu, as far as I am aware, no other Chinese thinker advocates for the useless as Chuang-tzu does. In fact in the Lao-tzu 'useful' is always used in a positive sense, (eg - "emptiness acquires use") exactly the opposite of the position we find in the Chuang-tzu!

 

The most memorable and detailed of the 'use of the useless' narratives are found in the mid-section of Ch 4 (the 'useless' trees) and Ch 5 (the 'useless' cripples); however the theme crops up in other places as well - the discussions between Chuang-tzu and Hui-tzu in Ch 1; a fragment of a cripple story in Ch 3 (probably dislocated from the Ch 5 series); the closing lines of Ch 4: "All men know the uses of the useful but no one knows the uses of the useless."

 

4 Particular criticism of Confucius' historical strategy as flawed:

 

This particular criticism of Confucius is not found in the Lao-tzu. However in the Chuang-tzu it is mentioned on a couple of occasions; most explicitly in the 'Madman' of Chu's speech to Confucius at the end of Ch 4: "Of the age to come we can't be sure // To the age gone by we can't go back" (interestingly in the same speech Confucius is accused of 'interfering with the madman's 'roaming': "Thistle, thistle, // Don't wound me as I walk. // My walk goes backward and goes crooked, // don't wound my feet.")

 

We also find this theme implicit in Confucius' own realization that he cannot 'roam outside the rules' and his identification as a man 'manacled by heaven' by Old Tan both in Ch 6.

 

5 Subversion of Confucian characters into Taoist heros:

 

As is often pointed out the Lao-tzu has a strange characteristic of not mentioning characters at all. In the Chuang-tzu we are met by a whole motley crowd. What is particularly interesting is that so many of them are taken from Confucian literature. For example the above mentioned 'madman of Chu' (Chieh Yu) appears three times in the Chuang-tzu and is taken from Ch 18 of the Analects. We also have Ch’u Po-yu the wise man of Wey, Yen Hui, Old Tan, and, of course Confucius himself, all originally Confucian characters and all, at various points of the Chuang-tzu, acting as Taoist spokespeople.

 

.............................................................................................

 

There are two reasons I have selected these five themes from the Chuang-tzu: firstly they represent five majour themes by which I think we can identify the voice of the Chuang-tzu's author. Secondly they are all themes absent from the Lao-tzu.

 

If we read the seven passages from Ch's 12, 13, 14 (x3) and 21 which detail the meeting of Old Tan and Confucius we find all of these themes articulated clearly in Old Tan's dialogue. I am willing to provide detailed examples but I'm sure you have a copy of the Chaung-tzu lying around and can look for yourself ; plus this post has gone on far too long and my wife is getting that look in her eye that tells me my time is almost up...

 

On the other hand we get none of the language of the Lao-tzu (ie 'root', 'mother', 'unknowable', 'valley', 'emptiness', 'wu' (other than one single use of wu-wei) etc...).

 

Thus it seems plausible that the author(s) of these fictional meetings of Old Tan and Confucius based the character of Old Tan on the philosophy found in the Chuang-tzu rather than the Lao-tzu. It seems to me that it is Chuang-tzu's voice we hear coming from Old Tan's lips.

 

[lienshan]

I will re-iterate this again at the end but none of these themes are found anywhere in the Lao-tzu:

 

1 Focus on yu 遊 - wandering/roaming:

 

2 Use of specific examples from nature:

 

3 The use of uslessness:

 

4 Particular criticism of Confucius' historical strategy as flawed:

 

5 Subversion of Confucian characters into Taoist heros:

 

There are two reasons I have selected these five themes from the Chuang-tzu:

firstly they represent five majour themes by which I think we can identify the voice of the Chuang-tzu's author.

Secondly they are all themes absent from the Lao-tzu.

 

I'll start with the easy one, your theme 2: Laozi used specific examples from nature in his chapter 66 to tell,

how a taoist should behave towards other people: a valley, a stream, a river and the sea are all from nature.

 

Your theme 3 points at one of Laozi's headlines: The useful is what isn't there, what is there is useless.

It's what is there that causes desire, what isn't there doesn't cause desire. I'm sceptical to Zhuangzi's

useless tree and cripple, because they are there, while the melon boat story matches Laozi's definition.

The uselessness of the tree and the cripple is what Laozi calls: when beautifull comes into being then

comes uglyness too, so to me it looks like Zhuangzi is mixing two approaches to the word useless.

 

Your theme 4 depends on how one read and understand the last three lines of Laozi's chapter 42:

 

What another has taught I teach as well:

Tyrants never choose their deaths

My take on it, father.

 

The line in italic is a quote attributed to Confucius. I read and understand Laozi as being sarcastic!

 

Your theme 5 descibes two different writing styles: Zhuangzi is telling fairytales using real people

as characters. Laozi is argueing with real people by quoting them or using specific words, which

are related to specific people. For example are Confucius, Mozi, Deng Xi, Hui Shi and Shen Dao

easily identified in the exavacated versions of Tao Te Ching.

 

Your theme 1 points at the fact, that Zhuangzi was a Shi, a wandering scholar, and therefore used

the word to roam so many times. Laozi wasn't a Shi, a scholar, and roaming wasn't natural to him.

Edited April 30, 2013 by lienshan

[penfold]

 

I'll start with the easy one, your theme 2: ...

 

 

Thank you for your detailed reply. (I will retain the use of the italicized Chuang-tzu to refer specifically to the inner chapters).

 

I will keep to your ordering of the themes, but leave theme 3 and address it along with theme 1 as there is a large crossover. I will also add two further considerations which I mentioned in the OP but are worth re-iterating.

 

On theme 2:

 

While Ch 66 of Lao-tzu does argue by analogy the analogy it uses is that of water. This often repeated in the Lao-tzu (see also Ch8, 23 etc…). More importantly is used very much in the context of 'flow' or 'yielding' as an ethical response.

 

The Chuang-tzu, on the other hand uses mainly ‘animal’ examples; wild cats, weasels, yaks, loaches, deer, snakes, centipedes, snakes, owls and fish are all used in the first two chapters alone! Unlike the water analogy linking to flow in Lao-tzu the animal analogies in the Chuang-tzu are not used in terms of ethical response instead they are used to demonstrate the what is ‘inherently so’ or 'nature' of things.

 

In the dialogues of Confucius and Old Tan we don’t find any water analogies pointing to ethical response, but instead animal analogies used in exactly the same way as in the Chuang-tzu:

 

“…the birds and beasts flock together” – Ch13

“The snow-goose wants no daily bath to make it white, the rook no daily inking…” – Ch14

“Beasts which eat grass are not irked by change of pastures…” – Ch 21

“…like a white colt passing a chink in the wall…” –Ch 22

“…the white fish-hawk impregnate when the couple stare at each other … The nature of things cannot be exchanged” – Ch 14

“Crows and magpies hatch… be a man fellow to things in their transformation” - Ch14 (Note how these last two examples not only match the Chuang-tzu analogies in style but make an identical point about the ‘nature of things’.)

 

Most compelling is the following from Old Tan’s dialogue in Ch 14: “the fish … forget each other in the Yagtse and the lakes” an analogy Chuang-tzu uses himself: “fish setting directions for each other in the water” from inner Ch 6 see also Ch1 discussion with Hui-tzu and the record of Chuang-tzu’s discussion with Hui-tzu from outer Ch 17.

 

It is clear that the type of natural analogy made by Old Tan in the dialogues is not only the same stylistically (animals), but the same in operation (what is ‘inherently so’), and at one point the exact same analogy (fish losing each other) as those found in the Chuang-tzu. On the other hand there is no fit with the analogies found in the Lao-tzu.

 

On theme 4:

 

I do not deny that the Lao-tzu is a profoundly anti-Confucian text. However what is characteristic of both the Chuang-tzu and the dialogues and the Old Tan dialogues is the particular criticism of Confucius’ historical method; which is absent from the Lao-tzu. Again we can match the language of Old Tan’s speech (quoted in the OP) to that of Chieh Yu in Ch 4.

 

On theme 5:

 

This point was about taking into account the style of the dialogues. If one of these dialogues were displaced and found in the inner chapters it would basically be impossible to tell it had happened; the narrative form is exactly that of the Chuang-tzu; where as if it were displaced into the Lao-tzu it would stick out like a sore thumb. This adds weight to my claim that the author(s) of these dialogues were basing them on the Chuang-tzu not the Lao-tzu.

 

On themes 1 & 3:

 

I think you’ve misinterpreted the Chuang-tzu’s use of both yu and uselessness. I will leave uselessness for now, as it is only a minor theme in the dialogues of Old Tan; what I will say now is the Laoist interpretation you give of the Chuang-tzu is not what he is driving at in his writings on the useless – this may form the basis of a profitable discussion and I would be happy to start another thread on it if you wish.

 

In terms of yu – there is significantly more going on here than Chuang-tzu being a wandering scholar. It is clear when reading the Chuang-tzu that yu is a character with serious importance to the Chuang-tzu’s philosophy – in fact I would argue it has more importance to the Chuang-tzu than the character tao – and certainly more importance than the little used character te.

 

The character yu peppers the Chuang-tzu and is almost never used (only two, arguably three, times) in the standard sense of wandering around. Instead it is used by Chuang-tzu as the ideal state of mind, and associated explicitly with the mind of the sage. It is also explicitly linked with the idea of ‘what is inherently so’, ‘illumination’, ‘uselessness’ and significantly ‘the Tao’; also it is regularly contrasted with the rigidity of Confucian, Mohist and Sophist philosophy. This central and philosophically rich concept of “roaming the free and easy take-any-turn-you-please path” (Ch 6) as the chief aim of life is completely absent from the Lao-tzu.

 

Given its importance it is very telling that in the dialogues between Old Tan and Confucius the character yu in its ‘philosophical’ form (ie not as literal physical roaming) appears at least five times. In two cases whole phrases involving yu are lifted word for word from the inner chapters egs: “ramble without a destination” & “letting the heart roam at the beginning of things”. It would be beyond credibility to argue that this level of textual and philosophical matching between the Chuang-tzu and the dialogues of Old Tan are merely co-incidental.

 

Two further considerations:

 

1) There are many phrases and ideas which I have not discussed in the five themes which appear in both the Chuang-tzu and these dialogues; the phrase “motionless as withered wood” and a reference to the “hard and white” (a sophist puzzle) and “disputation” all taken from Ch 2. Again it seems beyond co-incidence that there should be such a wealth of commonality between the philosophy and wording of the Chuang-tzu and these dialogues.

 

2) While, as detailed above, there are many images and phrases taken directly from the Chuang-tzu in these dialogues there is not, to my knowledge, a single reference to or quote from the Lao-tzu. Other than the traditional story of Old Tan being the author of the Lao-tzu there is nothing in these dialogues that would justify the claim that their author(s) was even aware of the Lao-tzu!

 

In conclusion the weight of similarlity between the texts and themes of the Chuang-tzu and the dialogues is really significant; whereas there is no apparent link to either the text or themes of the Lao-tzu.

Edited April 30, 2013 by penfold

[lienshan]

there is not, to my knowledge, a single reference to or quote from the Lao-tzu.

Other than the traditional story of Old Tan being the author of the Lao-tzu

there is nothing in these dialogues that would justify the claim that their author(s) was even aware of the Lao-tzu!

 

An untraditional way to investigate if there is a relationship between Zhuangzi and Laozi is to compare their

attitude towards to the legalist and taoist Shen Dao. Shen Dao was a teacher at the Jixia Academy in Qi

during the reign of king Xuan (342-324 BC). His slogans were "The Great Tao", "Abandon knowledge" and

"Reject the self". Here's a Shen Dao quote:

 

If the worthy are subjected by the unworthy, it is because their quan 權 (authority/power) is light and their position is low. If the unworthy can be subjected by the worthy, it is because the quan of the latter is heavy and their position is honorable. When Yao was a commoner, he could not govern even three people; Jie, as the Son of Heaven, could bring chaos to the whole world. From this I know, that positions of power are sufficient to rely on, and that worthiness and wisdom are not worth yearning for.

 

And here's a passage from the Confucius and Old Tan dialogue in the Zhuangzi chapter 22:

 

Whether they have a long life or a short one, how much time separates them? In the scheme of things, it's no more than an instant, so how could anyone determine whether Yao or Jie was right or wrong?

 

And here's a passage from the Confucius and Old Tan dialogue in the Zhuangzi chapter 12:

 

Being able to forget about those things and forget about the heavens - that would be called self-forgetting.

 

 

Now you know what to look for in the inner chapters which you know much better than I do.

The Yan Hui story in Zhuangzi's chapter 6 might correspond to Laozi's chapter 19

Edited April 30, 2013 by lienshan

[penfold]

 

An untraditional way to investigate if there is a relationship between Zhuangzi and Laozi is to compare their

attitude towards to the legalist and taoist Shen Dao.

 

Well the relationship between Shen Tao and the Chuang-tzu is really hard to know with any certainty, primarily because while we know that Shen Tao was righting roughly 300ADBC we don't know if this was before or after the Chaung-tzu was written.

 

In particular there are some really tantalizing links between Shen Tao and Ch 2. There is at least one sinologist (embarrassingly I can't remember who, nor can I find the reference) who even goes so far as to name Shen Tao as the author of Ch 2.

 

There is one real problem here which is that we have two 'versions' of Shen Tao. The first is from his fragments (I am using an online translation of the collection made by Thompson in The fragments of Shen-tzu); this Shen Tao is pretty legalistic, there is a strong emphasis on 'standards' (法), 'weights and measures' and 'reality'. On the other hand we have the account of Shen Tao in the final chapter (33) of the Chuang Tzu - Below in the Empire (a very late addition to the book) where the emphasis is on 'tao', 'destiny', rejection of 'that's it'/'that's not' (是 / 非) and 'forgetting the self'. There is some crossover but there is far more of a mismatch. So I will look at the links between the Chuang-tzu and the 'fragments' Shen Tao and the 'Below in the Empire' Shen Tao separately and only at the end try and bring them together.

 

'Fragments' Shen Tao:

 

In the Chuang-tzu chapter 2 we have: Mao-Ch'ing and Lady Li were beautiful in the eyes of men; but when fish saw them they plunged deep, when the birds saw them they flew high, when the deer saw them they broke into a run.

 

In the fragments (1-B.7 Thompson's ordering): Mao-Ch'ing and Lady Li were the loveliest women in the world. If they had dressed in demon garb, passers-by would have fled from them; if they had changed into black linen, passers-by would have gathered to look at them.

 

This level of textual matching seems suggestive; however it is noteworthy that the conclusions drawn could not be more different. The Chaung-tzu goes on to ask: Which of these four (men, fish, birds, deer) knows what is truly beautiful in the world? Where as the fragments continue: From this we see that fine black linen is a helper of beauty...

 

So even if there is a textual link (and this is only clear example I am aware of between the fragments and the Chuang-tzu) there does not seem much of a philosophical link. Moreover when we look at the philosophy found in the fragments it is at times directly opposed to the philosophy of the Chuang-tzu. For example:

 

In the fragments Shen Tao says the following about 'skilled craftsmanship': (I-C.18) The sons of craftsmen do not become competent without schooling because they are born skillful; it is because their crafts have become standardized. This theme is repeated in many fragments; and a 'standardization' of a ruler's Tao is advocated for (see I-C.19 & 20).

 

In the Chuang-tzu on the other hand, we have the skill story of 'Butcher Ting' in Ch 3: here the butcher is skillful because he has a/the tao 道, he has a 'spirit-like encounter' 神遇; works through his 'spiritual impulses' 神欲; follows 'heaven's structuring' 天理 and goes by what is 'inherently so' 固然.

 

You could not hope to find two more disparate accounts of skillful activity.

 

Thus I think you can safely say that; whether or not the author of the Chuang-tzu was aware of the 'fragments' Shen Tao (or vice versa); they have profoundly different philosophies.

 

Below in the Empire Shen Tao:

 

This Shen Tao has much more in common with the Chuang-tzu. So much so that when first reading the description given in Below in the Empire you can't help but wander if the author is in fact describing the author of the Chuang-tzu himself! This Shen Tao shares the following concerns/ideas with the Chuang-tzu: (the following quotes are taken from the below in the empire description of Shen Tao)

 

i) "The greatest Way can be embraced but does not judge between alternatives" - central theme of Ch's 1 & 2.

ii) "discard wisdom and forget the self" (in particular note Tzu-Ch'i 's speech in Ch 2 of Chuang tzu where he says "I forgot myself" - 吾喪我 - which matches the quote you gave from the Old Tan dialogue.)

iii) "cast off 'that's it' (是), cast off 'that's not' (非)" - this theme of rejecting the designations and disputations of the Mohists, Sophists, and Confucians is a central theme of the Chuang-tzu and in particular is the dominant theme of Ch 2.

iv) "troubles ... come from establishing selfhood" - again linking to Ch 2.

v) "clumps of soil" - a phrase used a few times in the Chuang-tzu as a description of the earth.

 

This level of matching would strongly suggest some link between Shen Tao and the Chuang-tzu - especially Chapter 2.

 

Synthesis:

 

Despite the apparent differences I think we can unify the 'fragments' Shen Tao and the Below in the Empire Shen Tao. I would contend that we can roughly sketch the following as Shen Tao's philosophy:

 

Shen Tao has a strongly legalist philosophy which emphasizes the importance of structure in society and is disinterested in accounts of 'virtue' as the basis of government (see fragments - esp I-C.23 "Even bad laws are better than no laws.").

 

He rejects the 'philosophical taos' (with their 'that's it' / 'that's not' 是 / 非) - hence 'discard knowledge'. In their place he proposes a single, unified, Great Tao (an idea found in both the fragments and the Below in the Empire account).

 

He thinks that the 'great Tao' is not a moral thing but is bound up in destiny; and that we should 'flow' along with this without any moral judgement by 'forgetting the self' - hence the Below in the Empire's criticism that his Tao is a Tao for the dead not the living.

 

So how far is this philosopher present in the Chaung-tzu and how far does the Chaung-tzu agree/disagree?

 

I think the Chuang-tzu matches Shen Tao in one respect, and one respect only, that is the rejection of the 'that's it' / 'that's not' (是 / 非) of Mohism, Confucianism and Sophism. In every other respect I think they differ.

 

The idea of a unified great Tao is rejected in Ch 2 (interestingly in exactly the same way Plato in Greece rejected monism): "Now that we are one (an assumption made for rhetorical effect), can I still say something? One and the saying makes two, two and one makes three. Proceeding from here even an expert calculator cannot get to the end of it, much less a plain man." Instead it seems to me that Chuang-tzu is advocating the view that there are many 'taos' and we swim (roam) among them, like "fish setting direction for each other in the lakes".

 

There is simply nothing in the Chuang-tzu which could be called legalist (and as the above extract of Butcher Ting shows the philosophy is very different); but notably there is no effort to reject legalism, which may imply that the author of the Chuang-tzu was not aware of it as a thought system.

 

While 'forgetting self' and 'destiny' are important for the Chuang-tzu the ideas are used very differently; there is none of Shen Tao's amoral fatalism, but rather a creative response involving 'wandering' (遊) and 'flexible deeming' (因是) is advocated.

 

Conclusion:

 

In my opinion there is far greater overlap between Shen Tao and the Lao-tzu than there is between Shen Tao and the Chuang-tzu. However there is enough of a crossover to make the idea that there is no link implausible. It is suggestive that in the Chuang-tzu, which spends much of its time critiquing other points of view, legalism is never taken on. So my suspicion, though it is no more than that, is that it is more likely Shen Tao was aware of the Chuang-tzu than the author of the Chuang-tzu was aware of Shen Tao.

 

However if we accept this claim we are then left with a very early date of authorship for the Chuang-tzu - before 300ADBC. More likely perhaps is that both the author of the Chaung-tzu and Shen Tao were roughly contemporary so share many themes even though their philosophies are very different.

 

 

------

edited because I can't tell the difference between AD and BC - thanks to Marblehead

Edited May 1, 2013 by penfold

[Marblehead]

I think you need to make at least the inner chapters of the Chuang Tzu older than that. Perhaps 350 - 320 BCE?

 

PS I'm enjoying the discussion.

Edited May 1, 2013 by Marblehead

[penfold]

I think you need to make at least the inner chapters of the Chuang Tzu older than that. Perhaps 350 - 320 BCE?

 

My own sympathy is with you on this, but I am aware that many people now place it later...

[lienshan]

Perhaps 350 - 320 BCE?

 

342 BC was the earlist year that Shen Dao could have been teacher in the Jixia Academy in Qi.

312 BC was the year when the Guodian Tao Te Ching was burried near the Chu capitol Ying.

 

In 2007, the Shanghai Museum published a collection of texts written on bamboo slips from the State of Chu

including six bamboo slips with sayings of Shenzi (Shen Dao).

 

Hypothesis 1: The inner chapter character Yen Hui is synonymous with Shen Dao.

Hypothesis 2: The three men Shen Dao, Zhuangzi and Laozi were contemporaries.

 

There are two Yen Hui stories in chapter 6.

 

I read the first as a Zhuangzi commentary to Laozi's chapters 19-66-46 which was one single chapter

in the Guodian Tao Te Ching. He compares the way it is written to a rapport from a funeral.

I read the second as Zhuangzi showing Laozi how he would write a corresponding Shen Dao critique.

 

Laozi listened to Zhuangzi's advice and cut the original chapter into three chapters ... and he too stole

Zhuangzi's idea of linking Shen Dao to Confucius by using the words benevolence and righteousness

when he rearranged the very important three first lines of chapter 19.

 

The chinese character 益 summarizes Shen Dao's legalism: vantage - a superior position - benefit

Laozi used this character twice in his three chapter 19 slogan lines.

Zhuangzi used this character trice whenever Yen Hui said: 回益矣 (I'm making progress/I'm improving)

 

........................................................................................................

 

The third Yen Hui story in the inner chapters is in chapter 4 and is written after 334 BC

Yen Hui wants to travel to Wei, where he wants to reform a very young tyrant ruler.

Modern scholars disagree about when King Hui of Wei was succeeded by his son Xiang.

Zhuangzi's story makes sense, if King Hui crowned his newborn son as King in 334 BC

and kept his own title Marquess until he died in 319 BC.

Edited May 1, 2013 by lienshan

[Marblehead]

Interesting perspective. I would still place Lao Tzu about two hundred years before Chuang Tzu though.

[penfold]

Hypothesis 1: The inner chapter character Yen Hui is synonymous with Shen Dao.

Hypothesis 2: The three men Shen Dao, Zhuangzi and Laozi were contemporaries.

 

There are two Yen Hui stories in chapter 6.

 

I read the first as a Zhuangzi commentary to Laozi's chapters 19-66-46 which was one single chapter

in the Guodian Tao Te Ching. He compares the way it is written to a rapport from a funeral.

I read the second as Zhuangzi showing Laozi how he would write a corresponding Shen Dao critique.

 

Laozi listened to Zhuangzi's advice and cut the original chapter into three chapters ... and he too stole

Zhuangzi's idea of linking Shen Dao to Confucius by using the words benevolence and righteousness

when he rearranged the very important three first lines of chapter 19.

 

I think your hypotheses are profoundly wrong, while at the same time I'm entranced by the idea. I really love the notion of these three great thinkers engaging directly with each other. One could write a wonderful dialogue between the three; an aged poet, a grumpy legalist and a madman sitting together hammering out the Tao!

 

With regard your first hypothesis I do not think that we have any good reason to assume that Yen Hui is meant to be Shen Tao. The Chuang-tzu frequently uses Confucian characters in stories to undermine Confucius, and the three uses of Confucius' favorite disciple Yen Hui seem to fit this scheme:

 

In the Ch 4 we have a skill story with Confucius as an ironic spokesperson for Chuang-tzu's philosophy; many of the central themes of the Chuang-tzu are present; the use of yu 遊"roaming free inside his cage"; the use of hsu 虛 "it is the tenuous ... Only the way accumulates the tenuous."; and of course the famous image of 心齋 "fasting of the heart". All of this is typical of Chaung-tzu's philosophy and I can find nothing that would make me think of Shen Tao.

 

In the first Ch 6 story, again I can find nothing which makes me think of Shen Tao at all, on the other hand we have a prolonged discussion of 化 hua - transformation. In fact the character is used a total of six times in this short passage:

 

"If in transforming he has become one thing instead of another, is it required that what he does not know terminated in being transformed? Besides the stage of being transformed how would he know about the untransformed? At the stage of being untransformed, how would he know about the transformed."

 

The discussion of 化 is a common theme in the Chuang-tzu, it is central to the 'perspectivism' of Chs 1 & 2. It is of course the key term in the famous butterfly passage. It is also central to all of the accounts of death in Ch6; see for example the two passages immediately preceding the Yen Hui one, where the notion of death as nothing more than 'transformation' is the central idea. So as with the Yen Hui passage in Ch 4; all I can find here is a typical Chuang-tzu passage, with nothing of Shen Tao's philosophy.

 

As for this passage being a comment on Chs 16, 46, 66 of the Lao-tzu I cannot see the link; but I am really interested in the idea; could you elaborate?

 

With the final Yen Hui passage, on the other hand, I think you really do have a point:

 

The chinese character 益 summarizes Shen Dao's legalism: vantage - a superior position - benefit

Laozi used this character twice in his three chapter 19 slogan lines.

Zhuangzi used this character trice whenever Yen Hui said: 回益矣 (I'm making progress/I'm improving)

 

Not only do we have the use of this term by we have the following speech by Yen Hui: "I expel knowledge and go along with the universal thoroughfare." This is a bizarre statement in the context of the Chuang-tzu which tends to reject the notion of a 'Great Tao' and is never explicitly advocating for the 'expulsion of knowledge'. It is certainly plausible that this passage is an exposition of a philosophy close to that of Shen Tao.

 

However I would add the following caveats.

 

This is the only passage where we find any philosophical link between Yen Hui and Shen Tao, and so I do not think it justifies the claim that in the Chuang-tzu the two are tidentical; the other two passages involving Yen Hui, as I have argued, contain nothing of Shen Tao's philosophy.

 

While this passage is unusual in its philosophy it is not completely aberrant there are two stylistic points which are very typical of the Chuang-tzu. Firstly, as already alluded to, the use of Confucian characters as taoist spokespeople (something absent from Shen Tao's fragments).

 

Secondly and, to my mind very importantly, we have the motif of the student/master relationship being inverted. In the passage Yen Hui starts as the student but at the end we have Confucius asking Yen Hui to be the master. This reversal of student/master relationship is used throughout the Chaung-tzu (think of the Lieh-Tzu shaman story, or Confucius and Choptoes, or even Old Tan's funeral; to name only three examples of this). As far as I am aware this literary technique is unique to the Chuang-tzu (though I may be wrong, if anyone knows of another author who does it please let me know).

 

Thus, on balance, while I think there is a very 'Shen Tao' flavour to the language of this passage I would still contend that we can fit it into the Chuang-tzu without needing to reference him.

 

-----------

 

Final thought; given your hypotheses how do you explain the fact that neither the figure, nor the writings of Shen Tao is mentioned? In a similar vein how do you explain why the Lao-tzu is never referenced?

[lienshan]

I would still place Lao Tzu about two hundred years before Chuang Tzu though.

 

Pulleyblank says in his "Outline of classical chinese grammar":

 

In late Preclassical Chinese of the Shijing and the early Classical Chinese of the Zuozhuan and Guoyu,

the exposure construction differed in an important way. A preposed object was repeated by a pronoun,

usually zhi 之 or shi 是, placed in front of the verb instead of after it.

 

That's just one concrete example of why the Tao Te Ching wasn't written around 500 BC but much later.

But it was impossible to know before the Guodian text, written in the original language, was exavacated.

 

I indicate in my 2 hypothesises that Zhuangzi is the old experienced Master and Laozi the young Master.

The reason why is the way Zhuangzi choose the roles to concrete persons; always a little upside down.

That'll say to place the young unexperienced Master Laozi in the role of Old Tan who teaches Confucius.

If Laozi really had been older than Confucius, then Zhuangzi would have chosen another role to Laozi

[Marblehead]

Fair arguement. But because I study the philosophy significance and not the historical aspect of the people I am unable to argue for or against.

 

And I really do like the flow of Lao Tzu and Confucius talking about how to control the people and Chuang Tzu responds with "Leave the people alone!" And afterall, both Lao Tzu and Confucius supported "government" whereas Chuang Tzu was an anarchist. (Not the type we heard of yesterday in Seattle; those are criminals claiming to be anarchists.)

[penfold]

Pulleyblank says in his "Outline of classical chinese grammar":

 

In late Preclassical Chinese of the Shijing and the early Classical Chinese of the Zuozhuan and Guoyu,

the exposure construction differed in an important way. A preposed object was repeated by a pronoun,

usually zhi 之 or shi 是, placed in front of the verb instead of after it.

 

That's just one concrete example of why the Tao Te Ching wasn't written around 500 BC but much later.

But it was impossible to know before the Guodian text, written in the original language, was exavacated.

 

I indicate in my 2 hypothesises that Zhuangzi is the old experienced Master and Laozi the young Master.

The reason why is the way Zhuangzi choose the roles to concrete persons; always a little upside down.

That'll say to place the young unexperienced Master Laozi in the role of Old Tan who teaches Confucius.

If Laozi really had been older than Confucius, then Zhuangzi would have chosen another role to Laozi

I agree that 500BC is far too early. Interestingly there is nothing in the Chuang-tzu inner chapters which shows any awareness of the Lao-tzu; whereas the later layers of the Chuang-tzu make extensive use of it (see, for example, Chs 8-12).

 

I think the most likely solution is that the Lao-tz emerged a little after the Chuang-tzu inner chapters - so between 300 and 200BC. However unlike both you and marblehead I don't think the Lao-tzu is the work of a single author but a fairly ragtag compilation of mystical sayings on the subject of government. This thread is not the place for it, but I agree with Lau's analysis that not only do different chapters contain different philosophies, but sometimes even within the same chapters we can find different points of view.

 

In philosophical terms I don't think the Lao-tzu is particularly developed having a primitive notion of Tao which is closer to Shen Tao than Chuang-tzu; and it lacks the philosophical maturity of the latter. Though as a book of mystical poetry the Lao-tzu stands as a monumentally beautiful text.

 

What I still cannot find any evidence for though is your assertion that the author of the Chaung-tzu was even aware of the Lao-tzu - still less that he was in contact with its author.

Edited May 2, 2013 by penfold

[Marblehead]

 

In philosophical terms I don't think the Lao-tzu is particularly developed having a primitive notion of Tao which is closer to Shen Tao than Chuang-tzu; and it lacks the philosophical maturity of the latter. Though as a book of mystical poetry the Lao-tzu stands as a monumentally beautiful text.

 

 

Excellent observation.

[lienshan]

a wonderful dialogue between the three; an aged poet, a grumpy legalist and a madman sitting together hammering out the Tao!

 

and of course the famous image of 心齋 "fasting of the heart". All of this is typical of Chaung-tzu's philosophy

and I can find nothing that would make me think of Shen Tao.

 

Final thought; given your hypotheses how do you explain the fact that neither the figure, nor the writings of Shen Tao is mentioned?

In a similar vein how do you explain why the Lao-tzu is never referenced?

 

You, Marplehead and I are three ordinary men, who need quoting each other to know what we refer to.

Zhuangzi, Laozi and Shen Dao were taoist Masters, who know without knowing (put in short).

 

Shen Dao represented the Huang Lao version of taoism.

A caricature of that version is described in Laozi's "Ta Yi Sheng Shui" text (it's in the Guodian version).

 

I read Zhuangzi's chapter 4 Yen Hui story as Zhuangzi's commentary to Laozi's "Ta Yi Sheng Shui" text.

He says, that it doesn't work, and that the way to deal with tyrans is "the fasting of the heart-mind" way.

 

Laozi listened to Zhuangzi's advice, dropped the "Ta Yi Sheng Shui" and wrote instead his chapter 42

Tao bears one, one bears two, two bears three, three bears everything etc. is Huang Lao put in short.

But the chinese text can also be read the this way:

 

Tao bearing once is the first born twice.

The second bears a third; the trice born everything.

 

That's my own way of reading the ancient texts and I respect that others read the texts in a different way.

[dawei]

Final thought; given your hypotheses how do you explain the fact that neither the figure, nor the writings of Shen Tao is mentioned? In a similar vein how do you explain why the Lao-tzu is never referenced?

 

It may be interesting to locate these three to their area and time; LZ in Chu, ZZ in Wei and SZ in Qi... If they were contemporaries or nearly so, should we really expect that they knew or had contact with each other?

 

Would they of cared where an idea originates and with whom that much?

 

I have been reading the Shen Dao and Shen Buhai and it seems to weave into similar themes of the LZ but I have not compared it to the ZZ.

[dawei]

Laozi listened to Zhuangzi's advice, dropped the "Ta Yi Sheng Shui" and wrote instead his chapter 42

Tao bears one, one bears two, two bears three, three bears everything etc. is Huang Lao put in short.

But the chinese text can also be read the this way:

 

Tao bearing once is the first born twice.

The second bears a third; the trice born everything.

 

That's my own way of reading the ancient texts and I respect that others read the texts in a different way.

 

I have compared 7 ancient cosmologies and it seems to me that LZ follows the equally brief outline in the Yijing. The other 5 are more detailed and closer. (Maybe for another thread).