ChiDragon Posted August 16, 2013 I leave the stage to you Till my temper turns mild good hunting Cd. Thank you for your kindness........... I hope you'll recover from your tantrum soon. You shouldn't get miffed over a conversation...... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted August 16, 2013 Thank you for your kindness........... I hope you'll recover from your tantrum soon. You shouldn't get miffed over a conversation...... He just doesn't have enough experience dealing with your responses. He's tough - he'll make it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Uroboros Posted August 16, 2013 The dove is not lazy. It is limited by its [smaller] perspective. I may not understand the soaring ability of Peng, but Peng has lost the ability which they possess too. That is a brilliant insight. They both have different perspectives/ views and cannot see parts of the others perspectives/views. This seems to point towards Wu/ Yu. That it is easy to focus on just one, without ever going into the other. We then only have half the experience, though. The Peng does not know what it is like to be the size of a Dove and the Dove has no idea what it is like to be the size of Peng. hehe...the Ant thinks the Dove is gigantic....like the Dove to the Peng.. What is the Peng to the Ant? The sky. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChiDragon Posted August 16, 2013 Wu/ Yu is not ZZ's concern anymore. At this point in time, Wu/ Yu was outdated. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Uroboros Posted August 16, 2013 Wu/ Yu is not ZZ's concern anymore. At this point in time, Wu/ Yu was outdated. Outdated? Not his concern? If its a part of Taoist philosophy, a part of existence, the Tao, why would ZZ not speak to it, if not by using the same terms? Peace. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted August 16, 2013 (edited) Wu/ Yu is not ZZ's concern anymore. At this point in time, Wu/ Yu was outdated. I pretty much have to agree with this. But we can still see it in some of his concepts without speaking to it directly. Edit to add: Actually, Chuang Tzu did not speak to some of the things that interested Lao Tzu. This is likely one of them. Edited August 17, 2013 by Marblehead 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Uroboros Posted August 17, 2013 I pretty much have to agree with this. But we can still see it in some of his concepts without speaking to it directly. Edit to add: Actually, Chuang Tzu did not speak to some of the things that interested Lao Tzu. This is likely one of them. So ZZ talked about things that LaoTzu didnt? Isnt the Mystery and Manifest just a part of existence? Hence my confusion as to why ZZ would not talk about it. Even If only in an abstract, in direct way. My previous post was actually a question. Outdates? Not his concern? I meant, why? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dawei Posted August 17, 2013 (edited) I pretty much have to agree with this. But we can still see it in some of his concepts without speaking to it directly. Edit to add: Actually, Chuang Tzu did not speak to some of the things that interested Lao Tzu. This is likely one of them. well... let's see... a few chapters coming up... "There was existence; there had been no existence. There was no existence before the beginning of that no existence. There was no existence previous to the no existence before there was the beginning of the no existence. If suddenly there was nonexistence, we do not know whether it was really anything existing, or really not existing." "Therefore from non-existence we proceed to existence till we arrive at three; proceeding from existence to existence, to how many should we reach?" "I can (conceive the ideas of) existence and non-existence, but I cannot (conceive the ideas of) non-existing non-existence, and still there be a non-existing existence. How is it possible to reach to this?" "The door of Heaven is Non-Existence. All things come from non-existence. The (first) existences could not bring themselves into existence; they must have come from non-existence. And non-existence is just the same as non-existing. Herein is the secret of the sages." 'In the beginning there was nothing; by and by there was life; and then in a little time life was succeeded by death. We hold that non-existence was the head, life the body, and death the os coccygis. But of those who acknowledge that existence and nonexistence, death and life, are all under the One Keeper, we are the friends.' --- It is not that he does not speak to Wu and You but he raises above its duality; he deconstructs it as One complimentary whole. Edited August 17, 2013 by dawei 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChiDragon Posted August 17, 2013 So ZZ talked about things that LaoTzu didnt? Isnt the Mystery and Manifest just a part of existence? Hence my confusion as to why ZZ would not talk about it. Even If only in an abstract, in direct way. My previous post was actually a question. Outdates? Not his concern? I meant, why? The "Tao/tao" are different between Lao Tze and Zhuang Tze. Please notice there is a difference how Tao was spelled. There are a "Tao" and a "tao". The "Tao" was in Lao Tze's mind while "tao" was in Zhuang Tze's. Lao Tze's Tao, sometimes, is either visible(Yu) or invisible(Wu). Sometimes, Tao is "tao" which is a principle. Zhuang Tze's "tao" is a reason which explains why are things happening that way. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Uroboros Posted August 17, 2013 well... let's see... a few chapters coming up... "There was existence; there had been no existence. There was no existence before the beginning of that no existence. There was no existence previous to the no existence before there was the beginning of the no existence. If suddenly there was nonexistence, we do not know whether it was really anything existing, or really not existing." "Therefore from non-existence we proceed to existence till we arrive at three; proceeding from existence to existence, to how many should we reach?" "I can (conceive the ideas of) existence and non-existence, but I cannot (conceive the ideas of) non-existing non-existence, and still there be a non-existing existence. How is it possible to reach to this?" "The door of Heaven is Non-Existence. All things come from non-existence. The (first) existences could not bring themselves into existence; they must have come from non-existence. And non-existence is just the same as non-existing. Herein is the secret of the sages." 'In the beginning there was nothing; by and by there was life; and then in a little time life was succeeded by death. We hold that non-existence was the head, life the body, and death the os coccygis. But of those who acknowledge that existence and nonexistence, death and life, are all under the One Keeper, we are the friends.' --- It is not that he does not speak to Wu and You but he raises above its duality; he deconstructs it as One complimentary whole. Thats a wonderful chapter! I see, thank you for the explanation. ZZ chooses to move beyond duality, eh... The "Tao/tao" are different between Lao Tze and Zhuang Tze. Please notice there is a difference how Tao was spelled. There are a "Tao" and a "tao". The "Tao" was in Lao Tze's mind while "tao" was in Zhuang Tze's. Lao Tze's Tao, sometimes, is either visible(Yu) or invisible(Wu). Sometimes, Tao is "tao" which is a principle. Zhuang Tze's "tao" is a reason which explains why are things happening that way. So tao, to ZZ, is a principle, a way that things come about? Interesting... Thank you both for explaining this to me! Peace Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChiDragon Posted August 17, 2013 (edited) So tao, to ZZ, is a principle, a way that things come about? It is more being a reason than a principle. Edited August 17, 2013 by ChiDragon Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Uroboros Posted August 17, 2013 It is more being a reason than a principle. reason as in way? The way things are/ come about? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChiDragon Posted August 17, 2013 (edited) reason as in way? The way things are/ come about? No, that would be a principle again. I'll let you know as soon as I've come across it in the near future. Edited to add.... The mushroom of a morning does not know (what takes place between) the beginning and end of a month; the short-lived cicada does not know (what takes place between) the spring and autumn. These are instances of a short term of life. Ahhhh...here is one that I can give you. A reason was given for the mushroom and the cicada do not see those thing as shown in red is because the short lifespan of both. PS.... This are the kind of things that we should look for in Zhuang Tze's philosophy and leave Lao Tze's stuff out. Edited August 17, 2013 by ChiDragon Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted August 17, 2013 So ZZ talked about things that LaoTzu didnt? Isnt the Mystery and Manifest just a part of existence? Hence my confusion as to why ZZ would not talk about it. Even If only in an abstract, in direct way. My previous post was actually a question. Outdates? Not his concern? I meant, why? Okay, to respond to this properly would require a lot of examples from both the TTC and the Chuang Tzu. I think your questions will naturally be answered as we continue with the study. Chuang Tzu was a mystic. He was actually much more into the Mystery than Lao Tzu was. But in a different way. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted August 17, 2013 Zhuang Tze's "tao" is a reason which explains why are things happening that way. Yes, this is another important point to keep in mind. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dawei Posted August 17, 2013 (edited) Chuang Tzu was a mystic. He was actually much more into the Mystery than Lao Tzu was. But in a different way. I actually do think it is useful to compare them as we so often talk about LZ that now being able to draw on where they are different seems useful at times. I would agree that LZ was more a realistic and spoke of a worldly Tao and he wanted to give concepts/Names or describe it; Name is Great; Way is this; Way is that. ZZ is more other-worldly, transcending even Tao, thus transcending concepts and names; He wants to show its action; Not name it [Way] as much as show how [the] Way works at every level of existence (but he transcend the concept of existence as he often questions this word--against non-existence and non-of non-existence; because it is cyclic instead of just dualistic). I think to simply say he gives reasons is still conceptual; Whereas LZ wants to say 'this' is the ten thousand and this is what it does (reasons); ZZ wants to present the actual ten thousand to us; show us birds of various sizes (Peng vs Dove) and HOW they actually live, think, exist. He wants us to get in their skin, and realize this is our skin. Instead of trying to emphasis we are but one of the ten thousand like the birds, he wants to make it a more 'collective' ten thousand; deconstruct it to what it is: One thing. He seems to put this forward in an eye opening statement like: "Heaven and earth were born at the same time I was, and the ten thousand things are one with me. " -- Tr. Burton Edited August 17, 2013 by dawei 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted August 17, 2013 Excellent post/comments! Yes, I am trying very hard to not say that we shouldn't be talking about such and such because all of it, everything we say and think is what LZ and ZZ are all about - what Tao is all about. (Almost time for Section 3. Maybe this afternoon or tomorrow morning.) 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rene Posted August 17, 2013 Instead of trying to emphasis we are but one of the ten thousand like the birds, he wants to make it a more 'collective' ten thousand; deconstruct it to what it is: One thing. He seems to put this forward in an eye opening statement like: "Heaven and earth were born at the same time I was, and the ten thousand things are one with me. " -- Tr. Burton One thing. As in, 'only One thing'. To me, Laozi stayed with Both - the whole and the parts. Nice post, dawei. (-: 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChiDragon Posted August 17, 2013 (edited) I think to simply say he gives reasons is still conceptual; Whereas LZ wants to say 'this' is the ten thousand and this is what it does (reasons); ZZ wants to present the actual ten thousand to us; show us birds of various sizes (Peng vs Dove) and HOW they actually live, think, exist. He wants us to get in their skin, and realize this is our skin. Instead of trying to emphasis we are but one of the ten thousand like the birds, he wants to make it a more 'collective' ten thousand; deconstruct it to what it is: One thing. He seems to put this forward in an eye opening statement like: "Heaven and earth were born at the same time I was, and the ten thousand things are one with me. " -- Tr. Burton ZZ is a philosopher, not a biologist, thus he couldn't careless how the birds live. He was using the various sizes of the birds to illustrate his philosophy about how to broaden one's wisdom by having a wider visible and look farther ahead. In the metaphor, he was implicating that one should not be so narrow minded as the dove by just staying in one small area and don't know what else is going on around the world. He was using the Peng bird to show a big contrast about its broad vision and wisdom as compared to the narrow minded dove. Edited August 17, 2013 by ChiDragon 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Uroboros Posted August 17, 2013 I actually do think it is useful to compare them as we so often talk about LZ that now being able to draw on where they are different seems useful at times. I would agree that LZ was more a realistic and spoke of a worldly Tao and he wanted to give concepts/Names or describe it; Name is Great; Way is this; Way is that. ZZ is more other-worldly, transcending even Tao, thus transcending concepts and names; He wants to show its action; Not name it [Way] as much as show how [the] Way works at every level of existence (but he transcend the concept of existence as he often questions this word--against non-existence and non-of non-existence; because it is cyclic instead of just dualistic). I think to simply say he gives reasons is still conceptual; Whereas LZ wants to say 'this' is the ten thousand and this is what it does (reasons); ZZ wants to present the actual ten thousand to us; show us birds of various sizes (Peng vs Dove) and HOW they actually live, think, exist. He wants us to get in their skin, and realize this is our skin. Instead of trying to emphasis we are but one of the ten thousand like the birds, he wants to make it a more 'collective' ten thousand; deconstruct it to what it is: One thing. He seems to put this forward in an eye opening statement like: "Heaven and earth were born at the same time I was, and the ten thousand things are one with me. " -- Tr. Burton Wonderful perspective.....I can see what you are saying, the differences....ZZ does seem to use stories to take us to a place, a slice of life and see it in a certain way... Building these slices to guide us to the whole...eh.. very cool! Thank you for all the great explanations! Helps to understand more about where these people are coming from. Peace. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChiDragon Posted August 17, 2013 Yes, I am trying very hard to not say that we shouldn't be talking about such and such because all of it, everything we say and think is what LZ and ZZ are all about - what Tao is all about. Yes, I do agree that we may make comparisons but must not mix one thought into another to distinguish the unqinueness of each philosophy. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted August 17, 2013 Yes, I do agree that we may make comparisons but must not mix one thought into another to distinguish the unqinueness of each philosophy. Yep. And this is why we are looking at this through the concepts rather than just a reading/comprehension study. And on that note: The concepts I am presenting are from Giles. He clumped them all together per Chapter. The way I am presenting them in the various Sections is mine. Feel free to disagree with me and/or offer alternatives. Like, if you see a concept in a section I didn't mention please let us all know. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rene Posted August 17, 2013 (edited) So..you're going to put Gile's concepts for the whole chapter in each section thread, rather than only the concepts for just that section? Edited August 17, 2013 by rene Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted August 17, 2013 So..you're going to put Gile's concepts for the whole chapter in each section thread, rather than only the concepts for just that section? No. Hehehe. I will continue the way we have been going unless there is a better idea presented. (Actually, if I did it that way it would be less work for me but I don't mind the work and besides, I have not read Giles' translation yet so this is a good opportunity for me to read it.) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dawei Posted August 18, 2013 One thing. As in, 'only One thing'. To me, Laozi stayed with Both - the whole and the parts. Nice post, dawei. (-: The "he" in my post was about ZZ... he seems to want to pull it together rather than leave it even down to two parts. thanks. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
