Discussion of Chuang Tzu Study

[Marblehead]

Concepts discussed in Chapter 1 are:

 

Space infinite

 

Time infinite

 

Relativity of magnitudes, physical and moral

 

The magnitude absolute

 

Usefulness as a test of value

 

The usefulness of the useless

 

 

 

Edited August 8, 2013 by Marblehead

[zerostao]

emptiness?

[Marblehead]

emptiness?

I don't think so. Where did you pick up on that? Please use the Legge Chapter and Section.

 

(Good start, I think.)

[zerostao]

ok let me go check out a legge version, i was looking at merton

[Marblehead]

ok let me go check out a legge version, i was looking at merton

Hehehe. Sorry to put you to all that trouble. (Not really.)

 

The Chapter and Sections are posted in our Chuang Tzu sub-forum. This will make it easier for everyone to cross-reference.

[Marblehead]

BTW I have never read Merton so I have no idea how much Buddhism was put into the translation.

[zerostao]

i am in a university library it isnt much trouble, they have quite a few good taoist materials ,anyways let me go to the elevator......

 

merton:

 

THE USELESS TREE

 

hui tzu said to chuang:

i have a big tree,

the kind they call a stinktree

the trunk is so distorted,

so full of knots,

no one can get a straight plank

out of it. the branches are so crooked

you cannot cut them up

in any way that makes sense.

 

there it stands beside the road.

no carpenter will even look at it.

 

such is your teaching--

big and useless.

 

chuang tzu replied:

have you ever watched the wildcat

crouching, watching over its prey--

this way it leaps, and that way,

high and low, and at last

lands in the trap.

 

but have you seen the yak?

great as the thundercloud

he stands in his might.

he cant catch mice!

 

so for your big tree. no use?

then plant in in the wasteland

in emptiness

walk idly around,

rest under its shadow;

no axe or bill prepares its end.

no one will ever cut it down.

 

useless? you should worry?

[Marblehead]

i am in a university library it isnt much trouble, they have quite a few good taoist materials ,anyways let me go to the elevator......

Going down?

[Stosh]

.

Edited August 7, 2013 by Stosh

[zerostao]

glad this is a test

free and easy wanderer is chapter 1?

this merton stuff is totally different writings?

[Marblehead]

glad this is a test

free and easy wanderer is chapter 1?

this merton stuff is totally different writings?

Yeah. I need the test in order to present the concepts in the best way possible so that we can actually discuss them.

 

Stosh got ahead of me and my brain so I don't know how to respod to his post yet.

 

I will take a peek at Merton's translation and let you know what I think.

[zerostao]

they do have watson and leggee here and those look nothing like the merton to me.

i may have to drop back and punt for now.

[Stosh]

.

Edited August 7, 2013 by Stosh

[Marblehead]

Okay. I peeked. Merton's is an interpretation, not a translation. He admits in his preface (or introduction) that he does not read Chinese.

[Marblehead]

they do have watson and leggee here and those look nothing like the merton to me.

i may have to drop back and punt for now.

Yep, I just posted about Merton.

 

Even though I prefer Watson I have been using Legge in the sub-forum so you might get Legge's copy that way we will be singing the same song even though we might get out of key now and again.

[zerostao]

i will trade in the merton for the leggee.

stosh, this is just a test run

no worries

[Marblehead]

Sorry I'm not hip to the flow you are looking for.rene said you'd have to drop cz to be in the phil tao cat and I don't see that as being the case at all with Cz also talking about the way things work in a rational considered logic based fashion. Zeros clip also on the same explanatory vector.

Hehehe. Consider that Rene is a Laoist. For her (I exaggerate) if Lao Tzu didn't say it it's not Taoist. (But Chuang Tzu did repeat much of what Lao Tzu said.)

 

Anyhow. I have no idea what I am looking for at this point except that I hope that we will have enough people involved in this to make it interesting and worth while.

 

So anyhow, yes, let's play with this as it is our test thread and see what happens.

[Marblehead]

merton:

 

THE USELESS TREE

That is actually a decent presentation of the story.

[Marblehead]

Hi Stosh,

 

Don't give up on me, Okay?

 

I am just trying to figure out how I can get as many people involved in this as possible.

 

I wonder if we can talk about the concepts first and then talk about how they apply in today's world, and/or even point out that they may not apply now-a-days.

[Marblehead]

Okay folks. It is time for me to get away from the computer, turn the fish pond pumps back on, eat supper and watch a Donnie Yen movie. I'll see Y'all in the morning.

[rene]

Sorry I'm not hip to the flow you are looking for.rene said you'd have to drop cz to be in the phil tao cat and I don't see that as being the case at all with Cz also talking about the way things work in a rational considered logic based fashion. Zeros clip also on the same explanatory vector.

 

Stosh...nooooo. MH cant stand the idea that I'm not a Philsophical Taoist like he is. I told him if he insists on labeling me a PT, then he'll have to change his parameters of what a PT is.

 

Hehehe. Consider that Rene is a Laoist. For her (I exaggerate) if Lao Tzu didn't say it it's not Taoist. (But Chuang Tzu did repeat much of what Lao Tzu said.)

 

 

MH - no, that's not what I said or meant.

 

What I said was "If Lao Tzu didn't say it, then I don't need it." Clean out your ears ya old geezer.

 

The reason I'm not "Taoist" of any flavor - is because Taoism includes much much more than just the TTC. I have no problem with anyone embracing whatever works for them or appeals to them. Why would I? I have no need to try and shove someone into fitting into a category.

 

You are right though, regarding ZZ using much of what LZ said. Unfortunately, ZZ twisted much of LZs original clarity into a cloudy mess, imo. But that's the way it goes, sometimes, when one has their own agenda. Not saying you do, only saying ZZ did; and some translations have more 'agenda' showing through them than others.

 

Maybe my perspective would be counter-productive to your efforts?

[Stosh]

A conversation gets boring fast without a foil and faster yet without grounds to agree. Ill dtop back and observe a bit. I don't worry about fitting the label or mindsets for pts neither should you. But if its the closest label, you might as well use it occasionally when it will be understood. Away from here I'd rather just go with atheist. ( I would call you more of a Unitarian though I don't really know what implies) :

They're just labels and only individuals really exist.

[rene]

was that for me, Stosh? if so, I agree re labels. What I don't care for is misunderstandings. For example, I've strong feelings about the efficacy of certain practices (which is fine) and others disagree with me (which is also fine) but if they think I'm speaking from a "Taoist's point of view", then that leaves a wrong impression about Taoism... and "Taoism" has enough 'wrong impressions' about it that it doesn't need my ramblings adding to its pile.

 

if your post was for MH, then never mind. (-:

Edited August 8, 2013 by rene

[dawei]

Hehehe. Sorry to put you to all that trouble. (Not really.)

 

The Chapter and Sections are posted in our Chuang Tzu sub-forum. This will make it easier for everyone to cross-reference.

 

Actually, what would make it easier is if you would post a link for each chapter you post.

 

That one, only one person finds the link for all, instead of everyone hunting through pages on each chapter trying to find it.

 

Added: With a little research, I wonder if these chapters line up with the study area. This has all Legge's chapters with one link, if you want to post this with each chapter:

 

http://oaks.nvg.org/ys1ra5.html

Edited August 8, 2013 by dawei

[Stosh]

Yes you rene , Mh is more a generalized atheist with a fuzzy place on his heart for PT.