Discussion of Chuang Tzu Study

[Marblehead]

 

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.

Of course he had an agenda. He was battling the growing popularity of Confucianism of his time and he thought that Confucianism was taking people away from their true nature. Anything that caused Confucianism to look bad was fair game. And this is why he spoke so badly about government and government service. But at the same time he was trying to support Taoism, but only in his own way.

 

Chuang Tzu was an Anarchist. He would not have been able to support those aspects of Lao Tzu that would be contradictory to his own philosophy.

 

 

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

No, your input will be very useful because it is my opinion that a study must include all aspects of what is being studied, no just what people think are positive aspects of what is being studied. If we talk about only the positive aspects what we are doing is promoting, not studying.

[Marblehead]

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

I have never seen that one before. Shit! This already did all the work I went through to break the Chapters into the Sections (Stories) that I have already posted. (But it wasn't wasted time.)

 

Yes, great idea. How about I post the Chapter concepts from Giles and then link the concepts to Legge's Chapter, Section? Would that make it easier and more efficient?

[Stosh]

Chuang Tzu was an Anarchist. He would not have been able to support those aspects of Lao Tzu that would be contradictory to his own philosophy.

Like what?

[Marblehead]

Like what?

Mostly support of government.

 

Consider, if you will, the vast majority of the TTC is speaking to the leaders or would-be leaders of the world. Chuang Tzu had nothing to do with that. More often that not if Chuang Tzu spoke of government or governing people what he said was negative.

 

He did, however, admit to the need of government (and I have accepted his view) because there are those who will not do the "right thing" and therefore must be governed.

[Stosh]

The heavy handed style of nonrepresentative feudal govt- I picture they would have had in those days-, wouldnt suit me either.

but Lao supported it?

[dawei]

Yes, great idea. How about I post the Chapter concepts from Giles and then link the concepts to Legge's Chapter, Section? Would that make it easier and more efficient?

 

I would tend to think it would be more efficient for all and allow easier participation if someone really wanted to see the chapter but doesn't want to hunt it down in each one you'll post.

[rene]

The heavy handed style of nonrepresentative feudal govt- I picture they would have had in those days-, wouldnt suit me either.

but Lao supported it?

In a manner of speaking.

 

Think aikido, where opponents energy is 're-directed' rather than blocked with force.

 

By advising from the inside, to 'cook the fish lightly' to 'let the people just be', Laozi was able to 'support' by suggesting the gov move in a direction more beneficial and possibly more palatable.

[Stosh]

'What is Three in the Morning?' asked Tzu Yu.

'A keeper of monkeys', replied Tzu Ch'i, 'said with regard to their rations of chestnuts that each monkey was to have three in the morning and four at night. But at this the monkeys were very angry, so the keeper said they might have four in the morning and three at night, with which arrangement they were all well pleased. The actual number of the chestnuts remained the same, but there was an adaptation to the likes and dislikes of those concerned. Such is the principle of putting onself into subjective relation with externals.

 

'How does the Sage seat himself by the sun and moon, and hold the universe in his grasp? He blends everything into one harmonious whole, rejecting the confusion of this and that. Rank and precedence, which the vulgar prize, the Sage stolidly ignores. The revolutions of ten thousand years leave his Unity unscathed. The universe itself may pass away, but he will flourish still.

 

'Who shall I employ as arbiter between us? If I employ some one who takes your view, he will side with you. How can such a one arbitrate between us? If I employ some one who takes my view, he will side with me. How can such a one arbitrate between us? And if I employ some one who either differs from, or agrees with, both of us, he will be equally unable to decide between us. Since then you, and I, and man, cannot decide, must we not depend upon Another?

 

This stuff , very quickly selected , seems to indicate that He accepted there was a need for a wise leader , because people couldnt arbitate for themselves. He talks about the preferred qualities of keeping oneself a bit removed from the hubbub , and manipulating what one could,,

to make the medicine go down. Im not seeing where he is significantly different from Lao yet.

Is there a particular chapter that is more explicit which yall are thinking of?

 

Would either of them consider our American system to be anarchy?

[ChiDragon]

Sorry, I am late.

To begin with Zhuang Tze, I would keep in mind that ZT likes to deal with the matter of reasoning rather than the matter of principles as LaoTze does. In ZT parables, he always state his reasons to make his point across with examples. As oppose to Lao Tze, he always state the principles related to Nature to begin with; then, drops down to the principles on earth for human to follow. Hence, Lao Tze sets up rules for people to follow while ZT gives reasons for people to perceive. That is the difference in the Tao approach between the two philosophers.


PS.....
I see people are jumping allover, in the discussion, without relating thought to Chapter 1. It would be advisable to have a more meaningful and productive discussion by staying within the scope of the subject matter by dealing one chapter, at a time, as intended. Don't you think.....???

We can discuss each verse intensively, instead come to a conclusion about his philosophy so soon, to see what was the reason behind the statements made by Zhuang Tze.

Edited August 8, 2013 by ChiDragon

[rene]

Sorry, I am late.

 

 

hi CD, i dont think you're late, i think you're too early. We both need to hold off on LZ/ZZ comparisons re differences in approach or thought, imo. As each chapter gets going strong as to ZZ concepts..that might be a better time to show differences maybe. Or not. Play it as it comes. (-:

Edited August 8, 2013 by rene

[ChiDragon]

hi, rene....
Thanks....!!!

In that case, the title of the thread need to be changed to read "General discussion for the philosophy of Zhuang Tze".

We both need to hold off on LZ/ZZ comparisons re differences in approach or thought, imo.

 

The reason I said that is because we need to have something in mind; so we will know what we are after without going off course too much. We must have an aim to stay within scope. The title was referring to Chapter One, I see people are citing different chapter already. How can we keep track of all these while people are jumping allover with our thoughts.

Edited August 8, 2013 by ChiDragon

[rene]

Stosh, hi

 

'What is Three in the Morning?' asked Tzu Yu...

(snip)

'..... Since then you, and I, and man, cannot decide, must we not depend upon Another?

 

This stuff , very quickly selected , seems to indicate that He accepted there was a need for a wise leader , because people couldnt arbitate for themselves. He talks about the preferred qualities of keeping oneself a bit removed from the hubbub , and manipulating what one could,,

to make the medicine go down. ...

 

I think that would make a really good format to start each section... a short post of the content... and then what the concepts seem to be.

 

***

 

hi CD -

 

hi, rene....
In that case, the title of the thread need to be changed to read "General discussion for the philosophy of Zhuang Tze".

 

this is only a test thread, so Marblehead can sort out how he wants to do this. I'm sure you don't judge books by their cover. (-:

[ChiDragon]

hi CD -

 

 

this is only a test thread, so Marblehead can sort out how he wants to do this. I'm sure you don't judge books by their cover. (-:

 

No, I am not judging the book by its cover. I am just having some pre-knowledge about the book assuming we are not reading the book the first time. Yes, it is only a test for CHAPTER ONE, I think the test had failed already........

Edited August 8, 2013 by ChiDragon

[rene]

 

Yes, it is only a test for CHAPTER ONE, I think the test had failed already........

 

Not if Marblehead now gets us back on track... after deciding which way to present for discussion. I think the way Stosh did his last post would be a good method, but MH will pick what works best for him. (-:

[Marblehead]

The heavy handed style of nonrepresentative feudal govt- I picture they would have had in those days-, wouldnt suit me either.

but Lao supported it?

You be the judge of that. Hehehe. Sorry, I won't say anything negative about Lao Tzu.

[Marblehead]

Would either of them consider our American system to be anarchy?

I doubt it. But they would probably agree that over the past one hundred years we have screwed it up pretty badly.

[Stosh]

Hey some folks believe in powerful govt. overriding the will of the peons in modern China and our own Founding fathers all felt that the general public couldnt handle the responsibilities wisely ,,, But Ahh, I fear I am again leading the thread astray by unanimous opinion. Case in point I guess

Frankly I wouldve thought Cz would have loved ! our system

Edited August 8, 2013 by Stosh

[Marblehead]

This stuff , very quickly selected , seems to indicate that He accepted there was a need for a wise leader , because people couldnt arbitate for themselves. He talks about the preferred qualities of keeping oneself a bit removed from the hubbub , and manipulating what one could,,

to make the medicine go down. Im not seeing where he is significantly different from Lao yet.

Is there a particular chapter that is more explicit which yall are thinking of?

Agreed. You will see the differences. Sometimes they are subtle and sometimes they are rather bold. In my opinion, the differences are pretty much only in the governing area of society. Chuang Tzu spoke of Lao Tzu many times. (Note: He never did mention the TTC. Did it even exist yet when he was alive?)

[Marblehead]

Sorry, I am late.

 

To begin with Zhuang Tze, I would keep in mind that ZT likes to deal with the matter of reasoning rather than the matter of principles as LaoTze does. In ZT parables, he always state his reasons to make his point across with examples. As oppose to Lao Tze, he always state the principles related to Nature to begin with; then, drops down to the principles on earth for human to follow. Hence, Lao Tze sets up rules for people to follow while ZT gives reasons for people to perceive. That is the difference in the Tao approach between the two philosophers.

 

 

PS.....

I see people are jumping allover, in the discussion, without relating thought to Chapter 1. It would be advisable to have a more meaningful and productive discussion by staying within the scope of the subject matter by dealing one chapter, at a time, as intended. Don't you think.....???

 

We can discuss each verse intensively, instead come to a conclusion about his philosophy so soon, to see what was the reason behind the statements made by Zhuang Tze.

 

 

hi CD, i dont think you're late, i think you're too early. We both need to hold off on LZ/ZZ comparisons re differences in approach or thought, imo. As each chapter gets going strong as to ZZ concepts..that might be a better time to show differences maybe. Or not. Play it as it comes. (-:

 

Yeah, we haven't even started yet. We all are waiting for me to push the "GO" button. My lazy butt will get going soon. (Actually, today was a long work day for me and finished about twenty minutes ago.)

 

I'm pretty sure I will go with posting the concepts from Giles and then the links, per concept, to the Legge site Dawei offered.

[Marblehead]

 

I think the test had failed already........

Well, it is helping me a lot and that is all that really matters. Hehehe. Sorry Buddy, you don't matter at the moment. (That's not true but I thought it was funny after what you said.)

[Marblehead]

So, yeah, that's what I will do. And including one of the stories with the concepts might work too. I will do Chapter 1 without a story to see if we have enough for a good discussion and then if not do one of the stories with the chapter concepts.

 

I will get it started as soon as I catch up with the other posts that have been made while I was out working.

 

C U Soon

[ChiDragon]

Chuang Tzu spoke of Lao Tzu many times. (Note: He never did mention the TTC. Did it even exist yet when he was alive?)

 

Yes, he did mention the TTC many times. If you really understand ZZ, spoken of Lao Tze was his way of mentioning the TTC indirectly.....

Edited August 8, 2013 by ChiDragon

[Marblehead]

Yes, he did mention the TTC many times. If you really understand ZZ, spoken of Lao Tze was his way of mentioning the TTC indirectly.....

Be careful. This may be based only on assumption.

[rene]

Be careful. This may be based only on assumption.

 

Might be a lot of assumptions, both ways on that.

 

My take shows LZ predates ZZ by a few centuries. Lots of things going on during those times (others here can speak better to this, dawei comes to mind) but as the 'religions' were congealing and competing (post-Laozi), there were lots of 'reasons' for LiEhr to become a myth (or a deity) , to change the name of The Laozi to the Tao Te Ching, and for other "Lao Tan" pretenders to 'appear' in this writing or that (including ZZ), and for no specific references to be made to any text.

Edited August 8, 2013 by rene

[ChiDragon]

Be careful. This may be based only on assumption.

 

Interpretations of metaphors in classics are always based on logical assumption. No........ ???

 

We can't treat it like a modern language of any kind, you know.