Who wants to talk about Robber Chih?!

[Rara]

Hello! So I love the many stories in Zhuangzi that talk about Robber Chih. Without the book at hand, just my phone, I decided to Google search and read some again.

 

I ended up with, what I think is, Chapter 29. We only have earlier chapters in this forum but I don't think it's neccessary to start a chapter thread as it's more the character I want to talk about.

 

So I will begin in summary and see where we end up, and I guess we can reference chapters if we like

 

Mainly for me, Robber Chih is a wonderful character for his honesty and loyalty to himself. He knows what he is, under no illusion, and is quick to point out the hypocrisy of the "high class". The character also brings me comfort - we live in a world run by the high and mighty saying what is and isn't moral, duping us into fear and chasing noble status. "Criminals" are led to feel guilty for petty crimes (though many don't - I hope to differentiate between what we should feel remorse for a bit later)

 

I am not perfect, by definition of the word, but I am perfect by my understanding of it. Robber Chih has his way...his perfection.

 

I like to tie this in to the Taoist teaching of "returning to your own nature", and also, neuroscience experiments into the "illusion of free will". If we inherit thoughts and our subjective nature due to our genes, upbringing and social environments, it can only be natural to keep within these perameters, otherwise we begin a struggle to do things that we don't really want to do, nor have evolved to do!

 

Discuss

Edited November 11, 2014 by Rara

[Marblehead]

Great thought for a discussion of some of Chuang Tzu's concepts.

 

For now I will remain silent to allow others to offer input.

[Rara]

I hope someone joins in!

[Marblehead]

I hope someone joins in!

Oh, I will if no one else does. There are some good concepts (lessons) included in the discussions of Robber Chih.

[Marblehead]

Well, I guess I will have to start this off and hopefully others will join in.

 

I will be using Burton Watson's translation whenever I quote anything about Robber Chih.

 

And even though Chuang Tzu devoted an entire chapter using Robber Chih as the focal point it is not the first time Robber Chih is mentioned.

 

In Chapter Eight we see the following:

 

"The slave boy and the slave girl were out together herding their sheep, and both of them lost their flocks. Ask the slave boy how it happened: well, he had a bundle of writing slips and was reading a book. Ask the slave girl how it happened: well, she was playing a game of toss-and-wait-your-turn. They went about the business in different ways, but in losing their sheep they were equal. Po Yi died for reputation at the foot of Shou-yang mountain; Robber Chih died for gain on top of Eastern Mound. The two of them died different deaths, but in destroying their lives and blighting their inborn nature they were equal. Why then must we say that Po Yi was right and Robber Chih wrong?"

 

Prior to this paragraph there was no mention of Robber Chih so apparently he was well enough known at the time so that there was no need to explain who he was. I would think that he likely was a real person and not someone imagined by Chuang Tzu to be used as a vehicle for the concepts he wanted to present.

 

So, yeah, losing one's sheep and losing one's life. The results are the same regardless of what caused the results. With the sheep it was inattention to the task assigned, in their death it was inattention to one's own life. All four put themselves in harm's way.

[Taoist Texts]

the slave boy how it happened: well, he had a bundle of writing slips and was reading a book.

 

this hints at a remarkable literacy ratio for those times. heck for any times

[Marblehead]

this hints at a remarkable literacy ratio for those times. heck for any times

Yes, I did notice that the first time I read The Chuang Tzu. In most Western cultures it was illegal to teach a slave to read and write.

[Taoist Texts]

i dont understand this passage. what is its point besides a trivial observation that jeopardising own life is not smart?

[Rara]

Well, I guess I will have to start this off and hopefully others will join in.

 

I will be using Burton Watson's translation whenever I quote anything about Robber Chih.

 

And even though Chuang Tzu devoted an entire chapter using Robber Chih as the focal point it is not the first time Robber Chih is mentioned.

 

In Chapter Eight we see the following:

 

"The slave boy and the slave girl were out together herding their sheep, and both of them lost their flocks. Ask the slave boy how it happened: well, he had a bundle of writing slips and was reading a book. Ask the slave girl how it happened: well, she was playing a game of toss-and-wait-your-turn. They went about the business in different ways, but in losing their sheep they were equal. Po Yi died for reputation at the foot of Shou-yang mountain; Robber Chih died for gain on top of Eastern Mound. The two of them died different deaths, but in destroying their lives and blighting their inborn nature they were equal. Why then must we say that Po Yi was right and Robber Chih wrong?"

 

Prior to this paragraph there was no mention of Robber Chih so apparently he was well enough known at the time so that there was no need to explain who he was. I would think that he likely was a real person and not someone imagined by Chuang Tzu to be used as a vehicle for the concepts he wanted to present.

 

So, yeah, losing one's sheep and losing one's life. The results are the same regardless of what caused the results. With the sheep it was inattention to the task assigned, in their death it was inattention to one's own life. All four put themselves in harm's way.

Nice counter...

 

This sets up a good debate then because elsewhere, I believe Robber Chih was portrayed in the book as someone that had the Tao. Let me see if I can find an example.

[Rara]

i dont understand this passage. what is its point besides a trivial observation that jeopardising own life is not smart?

Yep, I found that the book was quite hard to read due to many voices and paragraphs that seem to merge together with no obvious correlation.

[Marblehead]

i dont understand this passage. what is its point besides a trivial observation that jeopardising own life is not smart?

Fair. Hehehe. It may be trivial to you and me but there are many who missed the lesson.

 

My primary reason for posting it was the mention of Robber Chih even prior to a full chapter in his name. Apparently his life and way of life was a subject for many discussions.

 

The section I posted is an excerpt from a more significant lesson and set of concepts that were discussed in Chapter Eight.

 

And more than anything else I wanted to get this discussion going for Rara and any others who are interested in The Chuang Tzu.

[Marblehead]

Nice counter...

 

This sets up a good debate then because elsewhere, I believe Robber Chih was portrayed in the book as someone that had the Tao. Let me see if I can find an example.

Yes, and that we will be getting into when we actually start discussing Chapter 29.

[Rara]

@Marblehead

 

How about this, Chapter 10?

 

http://ramblingtaoist.blogspot.co.uk/2010/10/zhuangzi-way-of-thieves.html?m=1

[Marblehead]

@Marblehead

 

How about this, Chapter 10?

 

http://ramblingtaoist.blogspot.co.uk/2010/10/zhuangzi-way-of-thieves.html?m=1

Yep. And note the attributes bestowed upon Robber Chih: sageliness, bravery; righteousness, wisdom, and benevolence.

[ChiDragon]

"Does the thief too have a Way?" is very misleading by this translation.

It should read: "Does the thief too have a principle(道)?"

[Marblehead]

"Does the thief too have a Way?" is very misleading by this translation.

 

It should read: "Does the thief too have a principle(道)?"

 

 

You are trying to add human criteria in this. That would twist what Chuang Tzu was saying, I think.

[ChiDragon]

You are trying to add human criteria in this. That would twist what Chuang Tzu was saying, I think.

 

That was Watson's translation and his saying which did not reflect Chuang Tzu's saying. His story was completely twisted to make you believe that it is the way rather than the principle.

[Nerien]

I'd surmise what Zhuangzi was trying to say was that both men died by spending their vitality (thier life) on the illusions of material gain and reputation. So why is one judged to be superior to the other? Both waste their human potential on things that do not truly serve them.

 

What good is bravery, righteousness, wisdom, and benevolence if you misspend the proceeds? Better that you did nothing at all.

 

Edited November 14, 2014 by Nerien

[Marblehead]

 

That was Watson's translation and his saying which did not reflect Chuang Tzu's saying. His story was completely twisted to make you believe that it is the way rather than the principle.

From Lin Yutang's translation:

 

An apprentice to Robber Cheh asked him saying, "Is there then Tao (moral principles) among thieves?"

 

"Tell me if there is anything in which there is not Tao," Cheh replied.

 

Yes, he transliterated "Tao" but did stay with the word Tao or, as translated by Watson, "Way".

 

I think that when we insert the word "moral" we are naturally judge Robber Cheh in a negative manner. Cheh must be judged only on his own criterea, not on mine.

[ChiDragon]

From Lin Yutang's translation:

 

An apprentice to Robber Cheh asked him saying, "Is there then Tao (moral principles) among thieves?"

 

"Tell me if there is anything in which there is not Tao," Cheh replied.

 

Yes, he transliterated "Tao" but did stay with the word Tao or, as translated by Watson, "Way".

 

I think that when we insert the word "moral" we are naturally judge Robber Cheh in a negative manner. Cheh must be judged only on his own criterea, not on mine.

 

Very good! I'm glad that we have something is debatable.

 

Let's analyze.

Lin Yutang's translation: "Is there then Tao (moral principles) among thieves?"

"moral principles" is Lin's idea. However, it should read as:

"Is there then Tao (principle) among thieves?"

 

As common sense, why do thieves have any moral principle. If they do, then would they rob? Perhaps, we might say they have the principle of thieves.

 

What is the principle of thieves?

Thieves have no moral principle, they cheat each other with the things they'd robbed by divided unequally. However, a good leader among them has the principle of justice. He made sure that the members of his gang and himself do not cheat each other. He set a rule that all goods must be divided immediately after the robbery to avoid any misunderstanding. This is what the principle of the thieves was about. It was as simple as that.

 

As the old saying:

盜亦有道

A thief has tao too.

 

 

 

Edited November 13, 2014 by ChiDragon

[Rara]

 

Very good! I'm glad that we have something is debatable.

 

Let's analyze.

Lin Yutang's translation: "Is there then Tao (moral principles) among thieves?"

"moral principles" is Lin's idea. However, it should read as:

"Is there then Tao (principle) among thieves?"

 

As common sense, why do thieves have any moral principle. If they do, then would they rob? Perhaps, we might say they have the principle of thieves.

 

What is the principle of thieves?

Thieves have no moral principle, they cheat each other with the things they'd robbed by divided unequally. However, a good leader among them has the principle of justice. He made sure that the members of his gang and himself do not cheat each other. He set a rule that all goods must be divided immediately after the robbery to avoid any misunderstanding. This is what the principle of the thieves was about. It was as simple as that.

 

As the old saying:

盜亦有道

A thief has tao too.

 

 

 

Hmmm...

 

But I understood the chapter to be talking about mastery - similar to the butcher and ox...

 

That a thief should be a master, or not bother.

 

I don't know why moral principle nor principle would come into it. Despite translation (not my area, I know nothing of Chinese languages) I'm nit convinced what you say here is what the author was getting at...

[ChiDragon]

Professional thieves robbers have a set of principles to be followed. These principles were talked about in Chapter 10 of Chuang Tzu. What I had posted is only one of principles. The principles of the thieves robbers in chapter 10 are different from the principles of morality.

Edited November 14, 2014 by ChiDragon

[Rara]

Professional thieves robbers have a set of principles to be followed. These principles were talked about in Chapter 10 of Chuang Tzu. What I had posted is only one of principles. The principles of the thieves robbers in chapter 10 is different from the principles of morality.

So, you are saying that "principle" is the correct translation, and "Tao" or "way" is inaccurate?

[ChiDragon]

So, you are saying that "principle" is the correct translation, and "Tao" or "way" is inaccurate?

 

In this case, the original character 道(tao) is in its native language; thus it has to be correct. It is only a matter of interpretation. However, in most cases, "principle" is the most logical translation for it.

Edited November 14, 2014 by ChiDragon

[Marblehead]

 

Very good! I'm glad that we have something is debatable.

 

Let's analyze.

Lin Yutang's translation: "Is there then Tao (moral principles) among thieves?"

"moral principles" is Lin's idea. However, it should read as:

"Is there then Tao (principle) among thieves?"

 

As common sense, why do thieves have any moral principle. If they do, then would they rob? Perhaps, we might say they have the principle of thieves.

 

What is the principle of thieves?

Thieves have no moral principle, they cheat each other with the things they'd robbed by divided unequally. However, a good leader among them has the principle of justice. He made sure that the members of his gang and himself do not cheat each other. He set a rule that all goods must be divided immediately after the robbery to avoid any misunderstanding. This is what the principle of the thieves was about. It was as simple as that.

 

As the old saying:

盜亦有道

A thief has tao too.

 

I wish I had a little knowledge of the person Robber Cheh.

 

In my mind he was some kind of Robin Hood. Stole from the rich, kept for himself and his followers only what was needed and then gave the remainder to the poor, back to those the rich had stolen from in the first place. This is Tao. (No moral values needed.)

 

When the rains fall it falls on all equally. This is Tao. (We are not talking about the virtues of man. Some men would be thankful for the rain and others would be irritated because it rained on their parade.)

 

Does Tao even have principles? The closest my mind can come to "principles" are the laws of physics as they are now known.

 

True that those who Cheh stole from would think that he had no moral principles. But those who followed his "Way" would think that he had great moral principles.

 

This is a fun discussion and we haven't even gotten to Chapter 25 yet.