Chapter 1, Section 5 Concepts

[Marblehead]

Your stuck in singular words instead of the context of the paragraph. Get outside words and get to the whole section. You've twisted your point to nonsense at this point.

 

I think all your angst about the english language would benefit from writing classes. I think you would actually find a lot useful towards your comprehensive and translation work.

You're not charging CD for your advice, are you?

[rene]

@ MH Yes, I know how important it is to you. And if you were Steward over this sub-forum, you could hide the off-topic posts.

 

Edit to add: Including your own.

Edited August 30, 2013 by rene

[Marblehead]

@ MH Yes, I know how important it is to you. And if you were Steward over this sub-forum, you could hide the off-topic posts.

 

Edit to add: Including your own.

And some of yours too. Hehehe.

[rene]

Absolutely! Including this one.

[doc benway]

Tough section.

 

A few thoughts - Chien Wu is listening to Chieh Yu's talk and doesn't understand what is being said. He refuses to believe it because it doesn't make rational sense. Could Zhuangzi be giving us a lesson in how to listen? Maybe even how to listen to him?

 

When we hear something new, if it doesn't fit into our sense of things, we tend to reject rather than open ourselves and investigate and make an effort to learn something new. And in particular with Zhuangzi, he is telling us new things that may not fit our normal expectations so we need to work to understand. When we listen, are we simply listening from the perspective of agreeing and using the speaker to validate and reify our position? Or are we listening to disagree and reject, and again reinforce our own story? Or is there another way of listening, with openness, without expectation or position? This takes work and is difficult.

 

So who is the pale, shy guy with the soft voice who rides dragons and needs no sustenance other than air and water? He wanders beyond the four seasons and can concentrate his spirit to perform miracles. He's a Daoist Immortal it seems. Is this an archetype? A personification of nature itself?

 

Then Lien Shu castigates Chien Wu, pointing out his ignorance. He refers to the "Immortal" as having the ability to solve human quarrels and problems but then asks, why should he bother? This seems to me a lesson in nature's lack of concern for human problems as manitou and rene were discussing in another thread. There is a sufi (I think) saying that goes something like, 'the nature of the rain is the same, yet it grows thorns in the marsh and flowers in the garden.' Similarly, the flood will drown an innocent child and spare a thief...

[Marblehead]

Hi Steve,

 

That's great! You have gone deeper than I ever have with this section.

 

Your questions seem to be rhetorical in nature.

 

And yes, there is a learning theory that state that when we are confronted with new information that contradicts what we believe to be so the first response is confusion and then resisting the new information and falling back to what we feel comfortable with. So yes, listening with an open mind, willing to consider new information.

[dawei]

Hey dawei - while you're here -

 

Marblehead stated: "Chuang Tzu was a mystic. He talks often of mystical concepts. But here we can see that even though there may be immortals or even gods of supernatural powers they are not going to bother with the physical constraints of the physical world nor bother themselves with the problems of man."

 

Does that line up with the #4 item in your earlier post?

 

Thanks!

 

Ok... so you want a piece of the MMA fish now...

 

I am not sure I follow MH as he seems to contradict himself saying ZZ is not talking about immortals but then ends with saying he is talking about immortals.

 

But I don't see my point 4 as uniquely making a point but one of many attributes that ZZ about such a 'holy men' who could do this or that but simply do not concern himself with 'such affairs' of the world.

 

The section mentions the 'defect in the intelligence'; Intelligence can be deaf and blind too... So went Lien Shu's chastisement.

 

 

It closes with references to 'rectify the world' and occupying oneself with the world; The point is there is nothing to rectify nor occupy...

 

For me... it is a continuation of transformation... ZZ continues to play this card as the whole idea of rectifying the world started with the mention of Yao... and Yao was brought back in directly and indirectly.

 

ZZ still wants us to transform our own minds as the spirit-like man has done.

 

 

"The perfect man is pure spirit. He does not feel the heat of the burning deserts nor the cold of the vast waters. He is not frightened by the lightning which can split open mountains, nor by the storms that can whip upon the seas. Such a person rides the clouds and mounts upon the sun and moon, and wanders across and beyond the four seas. Neither death nor life concern him, nor is he interested in what is good or bad!" —Chuang Tzu

[rene]

"It closes with references to 'rectify the world' and occupying oneself with the world; The point is there is nothing to rectify nor occupy..."

 

Ah, okay. got it. So...then stosh is right in that 'compassion' isn't part of Zz (so far anyway). In your opinion, has 'compassion' been read into Zz by others to the extent it has been in Lz ?

 

Thanks, fighter-fish

[Marblehead]

I am not sure I follow MH as he seems to contradict himself saying ZZ is not talking about immortals but then ends with saying he is talking about immortals.

Well, I didn't want to come right out and say I don't believe that shit about immortals.

 

But then you point out attributes of the perfect man. Forget about the clouds, the sun and the moon and the wandering. That's the shit, oops, the dressing, the mystical stuff. The rest is sound and valid.

[dawei]

"It closes with references to 'rectify the world' and occupying oneself with the world; The point is there is nothing to rectify nor occupy..."

 

Ah, okay. got it. So...then stosh is right in that 'compassion' isn't part of Zz (so far anyway). In your opinion, has 'compassion' been read into Zz by others to the extent it has been in Lz ?

 

Thanks, fighter-fish

 

I went back to read Stosh's comments... I do agree with what he is saying and it may not be whether 'compassion' exists in ZZ (as comparatively less than LZ or simply absence) but rather there is no need to focus on boundaries and limitations based on our perceptions.

 

If one is thinking 'compasion' then one is dwelling on 'worldly affairs'; ZZ appears to want one to raise above this and that.

[dawei]

Well, I didn't want to come right out and say I don't believe that shit about immortals.

 

But then you point out attributes of the perfect man. Forget about the clouds, the sun and the moon and the wandering. That's the shit, oops, the dressing, the mystical stuff. The rest is sound and valid.

 

Maybe 'immortals' is the wrong word... given the context... if one is reading it openly... go figure

 

I think spirit-like or holy man is fine. We get enough physical references to know this is not an immortal being discussed... or at least it is something still in this realm.

[Marblehead]

Maybe 'immortals' is the wrong word... given the context... if one is reading it openly... go figure

 

I think spirit-like or holy man is fine. We get enough physical references to know this is not an immortal being discussed... or at least it is something still in this realm.

Yes, the stories contain lessons. "Holy man" would be fine with me as would perfect man and pure man.

 

But we need to read the stories in their completeness, including the mystical stuff, in order to see the lesson.

 

Remembering too that to my knowledge, Legge's translation to English was the first one ever done so he had no choice but to translate as he thought was best in representing Chuang Tzu's thoughts.

[Stosh]

Maybe 'immortals' is the wrong word... given the context... if one is reading it openly... go figure I think spirit-like or holy man is fine. We get enough physical references to know this is not an immortal being discussed... or at least it is something still in this realm.

I am reading this similarly , dawei,and am looking to see if this ambiguity about immortals is ever dispelled. I don't recall it ever to have been. Mh says Zz is more a mystic ...maybe .. but he may be playing to an audience which is predisposed to seeing the abstract issues discussed in terms of what we call supernatural today. Ill be looking with an eye to find accord with other views,.

[dawei]

I am reading this similarly , dawei,and am looking to see if this ambiguity about immortals is ever dispelled.

 

The word used by ZZ is Shen Ren and immortal is more often found as Xian Ren or Xian Sheng... but the attributes used are often common and blur the lines and the actual word may be less important on some level.

 

 

Anyways, Holmes Welch may want to toss a bone to you and MH on this point:

 

Holmes Welch (1957:88–97) analyzed the beginnings of Daoism, sometime around the 4th-3rd centuries BCE, from four separate streams: philosophical Daoism (Laozi, Zhuangzi, Liezi), a "hygiene school" that cultivated longevity through breathing exercises and yoga, Chinese alchemy and Five Elements philosophy, and those who sought Penglai and elixirs of "immortality". This is what he concludes about xian.

 

It is my own opinion, therefore, that though the word hsien, or Immortal, is used by Chuang Tzu and Lieh Tzu, and though they attributed to their idealized individual the magic powers that were attributed to the hsien in later times, nonetheless the hsien ideal was something they did not believe in—either that it was possible or that it was good. The magic powers are allegories and hyperboles for the natural powers that come from identification with Tao. Spiritualized Man, P'eng-lai, and the rest are features of a genre which is meant to entertain, disturb, and exalt us, not to be taken as literal hagiography. Then and later, the philosophical Taoists were distinguished from all other schools of Taoism by their rejection of the pursuit of immortality. As we shall see, their books came to be adopted as scriptural authority by those who did practice magic and seek to become immortal. But it was their misunderstanding of philosophical Taoism that was the reason they adopted it.

(Welch 1957:95)

Edited August 30, 2013 by dawei

[Stosh]

The word used by ZZ is Shen Ren and immortal is more often found as Xian Ren or Xian Sheng... but the attributes used are often common and blur the lines and the actual word may be less important on some level. Anyways, Holmes Welch may want to toss a bone to you and MH on this point: Holmes Welch (1957:88–97) analyzed the beginnings of Daoism, sometime around the 4th-3rd centuries BCE, from four separate streams: philosophical Daoism (Laozi, Zhuangzi, Liezi), a "hygiene school" that cultivated longevity through breathing exercises and yoga, Chinese alchemy and Five Elements philosophy, and those who sought Penglai and elixirs of "immortality". This is what he concludes about xian.

Yes that is a yummy bone!

[ChiDragon]

That was no yummy bone. The more stuffs he knows, the more he toss in to create more confusion.

[ChiDragon]

Nothing could hurt that immortal(神人) ; the greatest floods, reaching to the sky, could not drown him, nor would he feel the fervour of the greatest heats melting metals and stones till they flowed, and scorching all the ground and hills.

ZZ had defined what immortal(神人) is here. If it was stated the same all the time, then why should anyone go look for the answer elsewhere......???

[ChiDragon]

"The perfect man is pure spirit. He does not feel the heat of the burning deserts nor the cold of the vast waters. He is not frightened by the lightning which can split open mountains, nor by the storms that can whip upon the seas. Such a person rides the clouds and mounts upon the sun and moon, and wanders across and beyond the four seas. Neither death nor life concern him, nor is he interested in what is good or bad!" —Chuang Tzu

I would not criticize too much on this translation; but it certainly didn't reflect closely to the original thoughts. I believe in the original section it did state that a person(?) flies in the air still depends on the draft of the wind. The metaphor says, even though one can fly but still relies on the draft of the wind. This still leads to my bias interpretation on the "Free Wanderer": If one has to be depended on the draft of the wind to fly, then one is still one level behind to be a "Free Wanderer". It was simple because one still has to depend on an attachment which does not give one the freedom to fly independently.

[Marblehead]

That was no yummy bone. The more stuffs he knows, the more he toss in to create more confusion.

But I do agree with Welch's analysis.

[Marblehead]

 

 

ZZ had defined what immortal(神人) is here. If it was stated the same all the time, then why should anyone go look for the answer elsewhere......???

But those are fairy tales. Immortals don't really exist.

[Marblehead]

If one has to be depended on the draft of the wind to fly, then one is still one level behind to be a "Free Wanderer". It was simple because one still has to depend on an attachment which does not give one the freedom to fly independently.

So what do all things depend on? Tao, of course. (Tzujan too.)

[Stosh]

That was no yummy bone. The more stuffs he knows, the more he toss in to create more confusion.

lol ! I don't know how I can use it that way ,, I almost never use quotes

[Stosh]

ZZ had defined what immortal(神人) is here. If it was stated the same all the time, then why should anyone go look for the answer elsewhere......???

Because there is stiill room to see it as non-literal ! hyperbole analogy etc.

Ithe philosophical school rejects immortality and you consider yourself to be of that school then how could you consider he meant it as a factual description ? That would sow confusion.

[dawei]

That was no yummy bone. The more stuffs he knows, the more he toss in to create more confusion.

 

MH and Stosh have stated they don't believe in the immortal angle... Stosh said he was interested to 'find accord with other views'... meaning along that line of thinking.

 

I provided an example towards their belief... they both acknowledged as much afterwards.

 

Read more carefully. And re-read. Your the only one disagreeing here.

[dawei]

 

 

I would not criticize too much on this translation; but it certainly didn't reflect closely to the original thoughts. I believe in the original section it did state that a person(?) flies in the air still depends on the draft of the wind. The metaphor says, even though one can fly but still relies on the draft of the wind. This still leads to my bias interpretation on the "Free Wanderer": If one has to be depended on the draft of the wind to fly, then one is still one level behind to be a "Free Wanderer". It was simple because one still has to depend on an attachment which does not give one the freedom to fly independently.

 

I said that earlier... so your just agreeing with me and not the quote as much. thank you.