Who wants to talk about Robber Chih?!

[Marblehead]

What's interesting is the use of the word "sage". Where Lao Tzu talks highly of sages, Chuang Tzu claims that gaining sageliness is not hard and a sage can still be bad...a thief even. You can have many bad people in the world...many bad sages.

We need be careful here, I think. Lao Tzu's Sage is the one who walks the Way of Tao. The other "Sage" should be literated as "the learned ones"; speaking of Robber Chih, the Confucians, and others.

 

Is there another Chapter where Robber Chih is mentioned before 29?

There is mention of him in both Chapter 11 and 12. In Chapter 11, I doubt what is said would add anything to the discussion but what is in Chapter 12 is an aspect that we haven't considered yet.

 

It's up to you; to do Chapter 12 or go directly to 29. Let me know.

[Rara]

Here are some of the terms used by Zhuang Zi. The definitions are defined from my source as below:

• (67)至人：这里指道德修养最高尚的人。无己：清除外物与自我的界限，达到忘掉自己的境界。
• (68)神人：这里指精神世界完全能超脱于物外的人。无功：不建树功业。
• (69)圣人：这里指思想修养臻于完美的人。无名：不追求名誉地位。

1. 至人: A person who has been cultivated to the highest virtue of Tao. He is selfless, non-materialistic and altruistic.

2. 神人: A person who has a spiritual world which is out of the ordinary. He does not hold any title.

3. 圣人: A person who has been cultivated and reached perfection in his thinking. He is nameless and has no desire to strive for rich and famous.

 

圣人 has been translated as "sage" in many cases.

 

My source is a very good reference for the study of Zhuang Zi. It has the original text followed by the modern interpretation and the definitions of the ancient terms.

 

Ref: My source

 

Wow...so you mean Burton Watson has used "Sage" to summarise no. 3? And many of us in the west would see no. 1 as a sage (I would, by definintion)...

[Rara]

Hi guys...now you make me think. I've even gone onto the computer to use the multi-quote function!

 

By logic and common sense, there is no such thing as a bad sage. A sage is always good. It is because a sage is highly cultivated. How can a bad person was being a sage at the same time? What do you think about that?

 

Yes, this is what struck me. Either Zhuangzi believes in bad sages, or Burton Watson must be using a more general translation - which to me is misleading. For example:

 

"Robber Chih must acquire the Way of the sage before he can practice his profession" - Ch10

 

How can we understand Chinese philosophy in the West if translations aren't too accurate?

 

We need be careful here, I think. Lao Tzu's Sage is the one who walks the Way of Tao. The other "Sage" should be literated as "the learned ones"; speaking of Robber Chih, the Confucians, and others.

 

There is mention of him in both Chapter 11 and 12. In Chapter 11, I doubt what is said would add anything to the discussion but what is in Chapter 12 is an aspect that we haven't considered yet.

 

It's up to you; to do Chapter 12 or go directly to 29. Let me know.

 

Yes, I'm trying to get to the bottom of whether there are other versions of "sage". Seems to me though, by what CD is saying, that neither translates as "sage", but instead they have more wordier descriptions. Unless I'm missing something?

 

I would like to see Chapter 12 in this case! Bring it on...

Edited November 19, 2014 by Rara

[Marblehead]

 

I would like to see Chapter 12 in this case! Bring it on...

Okay. But first, one more comment to this last passage.

 

Legge speaks to this difference between the sagely who use their "principles" for good and then there are those who use their sagely "principles" for efforts that cause nothing but harm.

 

I think we need to separate the concepts of "the Sage" of Lao Tzu from Chuang Tzu's persons of "sagely principles".

 

Again, Chuang Tzu is speaking against the teachings of the Confucians whereas Confucius was not an issue in the Tao Te Ching.

[Marblehead]

From Chapter 12:

 

 

The hundred-year-old tree is hacked up to make bowls for the sacrificial wine, blue and yellow, with patterns on them, and the chips are thrown into the ditch. Compare the sacrificial bowls with the chips in the ditch and you will find them far apart in beauty and ugliness; yet they are alike in having lost their inborn nature. Robber Chih, Tseng, and Shih are far apart in deeds and righteousness, and yet they are the same in having lost their inborn nature. There are five conditions under which the inborn nature is lost. One: when the five colors confuse the eye and cause the eyesight to be unclear. Two: when the five notes confuse the ear and cause the hearing to be unclear. Three: when the five odors stimulate the nose and produce weariness and congestion in the forehead. Four: when the five flavors dull the mouth, causing the sense of taste to be impaired and lifeless. Five: when likes and dislikes unsettle the mind and cause the inborn nature to become volatile and flighty. These five are all a danger to life. And yet the followers of Yang Tzu and Mo Tzu go striding around, thinking they have really gotten hold of something. This is not what I call getting hold of something.

 

 

Important here, in my mind, is that Robber Chih, although possessing the principles of the sagely, has lost his "inborn nature".

[Nerien]

Important here, in my mind, is that Robber Chih, although possessing the principles of the sagely, has lost his "inborn nature".

 

I love the re-occuring use of tree imagery. Robber Chih might be as smart and disciplined as a sage, and even kind and benevolent to his own, but he's still a product of civilization.

 

He's artificial in the strict sense of the word meaning 'man-made'.

[Marblehead]

I love the re-occuring use of tree imagery. Robber Chih might be as smart and disciplined as a sage, and even kind and benevolent to his own, but he's still a product of civilization.

 

He's artificial in the strict sense of the word meaning 'man-made'.

Yeah, we got back to the point you made earlier, didn't we?

[Rara]

 

He's artificial in the strict sense of the word meaning 'man-made'.

I would love to meet someone that isn't!

[Rara]

From Chapter 12:

 

 

The hundred-year-old tree is hacked up to make bowls for the sacrificial wine, blue and yellow, with patterns on them, and the chips are thrown into the ditch. Compare the sacrificial bowls with the chips in the ditch and you will find them far apart in beauty and ugliness; yet they are alike in having lost their inborn nature. Robber Chih, Tseng, and Shih are far apart in deeds and righteousness, and yet they are the same in having lost their inborn nature. There are five conditions under which the inborn nature is lost. One: when the five colors confuse the eye and cause the eyesight to be unclear. Two: when the five notes confuse the ear and cause the hearing to be unclear. Three: when the five odors stimulate the nose and produce weariness and congestion in the forehead. Four: when the five flavors dull the mouth, causing the sense of taste to be impaired and lifeless. Five: when likes and dislikes unsettle the mind and cause the inborn nature to become volatile and flighty. These five are all a danger to life. And yet the followers of Yang Tzu and Mo Tzu go striding around, thinking they have really gotten hold of something. This is not what I call getting hold of something.

 

 

Important here, in my mind, is that Robber Chih, although possessing the principles of the sagely, has lost his "inborn nature".

Seems this way.

 

Now I'm looking for where Chuang Tzu offers ways of not losing the inborn nature.

 

As a side note, in modern times, we have Bruce Lee. Another man with principles, and the "Tao of Gung Fu". Yet he strived for fame, the perfect body, the ultimate martial art and philosophy. Can poor Mr. Lee, then, be likened to Robber Chih?

[Marblehead]

As a side note, in modern times, we have Bruce Lee. Another man with principles, and the "Tao of Gung Fu". Yet he strived for fame, the perfect body, the ultimate martial art and philosophy. Can poor Mr. Lee, then, be likened to Robber Chih?

I have mentioned this before but no one chose to argue with me.

 

Bruce did, IMO, strive for the unattainable. He killed himself through his striving. So yes, Bruce Lee would be, not necessarily like Robber Chih, but rather Po Yi who Chuang Tzu spoke of earlier.

[Nerien]

I would love to meet someone that isn't!

 

How would you tell the difference? Maybe you meet such people each and every day.

[Rara]

 

How would you tell the difference? Maybe you meet such people each and every day.

To that I can't.

 

There's always someone out there that feels they have it all locked down.

 

I could even claim to be one.

 

Maybe I am one.

 

Only I will ever know...

[Rara]

@Nerien

 

Would you argue that someone can possibly not be a product of civilisation? If so, I would love to hear how you think this could be possible...

Edited November 19, 2014 by Rara

[Nerien]

Oh, I wasn't trying to be too mystical about it actually.

 

I'm of the opinion that such natural people don't 'lock things down'. They just are. They don't do things for reasons. There's nowhere to go.

 

Reasons and linear, or 'goal oriented', thinking is very artificial. We're all taught to do things 'because'.

 

Some people just shrug this off. It doesn't take. They're like natural saints. It doesn't seem to matter if they've been left to themselves or been brought up as a strict fundementalist. They stay in the moment, rather than being stuck in the 'past' or craving something in the 'future'.

 

@Nerien

Would you argue that someone can possibly not be a product of civilisation? If so, I would love to hear how you think this could be possible...

 

You're not a product of civilization, you're a product of millions of years of evolution. However, you've been programmed by artificial constructs in civilization that distort reality. Here's an example:

 

One: when the five colors confuse the eye and cause the eyesight to be unclear.

 

Like Nietzsche has said - "We are all better artists than we realize.". Look at something nearby that is red. Is that red? Really? Because it's not. The 'natural' human just looks at it without labelling. The programmed human recalls the learned colour from memory and barely looks at the actual object - that could be, and most likely is, a completely unique colour that just so happens to be close to what you consider 'red' to be. We get trapped within the boxes of our own mental constructs when all we do is think and recall and forget to actually look at it without preference or prejudice.

[Rara]

Oh, I wasn't trying to be too mystical about it actually.

 

I'm of the opinion that such natural people don't 'lock things down'. They just are. They don't do things for reasons. There's nowhere to go.

 

Reasons and linear, or 'goal oriented', thinking is very artificial. We're all taught to do things 'because'.

 

Some people just shrug this off. It doesn't take. They're like natural saints. It doesn't seem to matter if they've been left to themselves or been brought up as a strict fundementalist. They stay in the moment, rather than being stuck in the 'past' or craving something in the 'future'.

 

 

You're not a product of civilization, you're a product of millions of years of evolution. However, you've been programmed by artificial constructs in civilization that distort reality. Here's an example:

 

One: when the five colors confuse the eye and cause the eyesight to be unclear.

 

Like Nietzsche has said - "We are all better artists than we realize.". Look at something nearby that is red. Is that red? Really? Because it's not. The 'natural' human just looks at it without labelling. The programmed human recalls the learned colour from memory and barely looks at the actual object - that could be, and most likely is, a completely unique colour that just so happens to be close to what you consider 'red' to be. We get trapped within the boxes of our own mental constructs when all we do is think and recall and forget to actually look at it without preference or prejudice.

 

I fully agree. I am just yet to meet one of these "natural saints". Everyone I've ever seen has some sort of motivation, goal or preference at the very least.

[Nerien]

I fully agree. I am just yet to meet one of these "natural saints". Everyone I've ever seen has some sort of motivation, goal or preference at the very least.

 

Yup. The rest of us are left with having to practice to get back into that state.

 

The doing before not-doing.

[Rara]

Yup. The rest of us are left with having to practice to get back into that state.

 

The doing before not-doing.

 

Let's hope it's not a myth, eh?

[ChiDragon]

The hundred-year-old tree is hacked up to make bowls for the sacrificial wine, blue and yellow, with patterns on them, and the chips are thrown into the ditch. Compare the sacrificial bowls with the chips in the ditch and you will find them far apart in beauty and ugliness; yet they are alike in having lost their inborn nature.

 

 

百年的大树，伐倒剖开后雕刻成精美的酒器，再用青、黄二色彩绘出美丽的花纹，而余下的断木则弃置在山沟里。雕刻成精美酒器的一段木料比起弃置在山沟里的其余木料，美好的命运和悲惨的遭遇之间就有了差别，不过对于失去了原有的本性来说却是一样的

 

 

A hundred-year-old tree was hacked up to make exquisite utensils for wines with carvings on it. Then, the patterns were painted over with green and yellow colors. Unfortunately, the unwanted pieces were abandoned in the forest. In comparison, the carved beautiful pieces and the abandoned, there is a big difference in between the fate of good fortunate and the encounter of misery. However, the inborn nature which had been lost, originally, they are the same.

Edited November 19, 2014 by ChiDragon

[Marblehead]

However, the inborn nature which had been lost, originally, they are the same.

Exactly. And this is where we get the new-born calf, new-born babe, and the uncarved wood.

 

Although we have been formed and carved, we at least know that there was a state when all was natural. I doubt we can ever get there totally but we can get close, become more natural.

[Rara]

Exactly. And this is where we get the new-born calf, new-born babe, and the uncarved wood.

 

Although we have been formed and carved, we at least know that there was a state when all was natural. I doubt we can ever get there totally but we can get close, become more natural.

So we may not return to our natural state, but can come close with practice and knowledge from these teachings. That sounds at least feasible

[Marblehead]

So we may not return to our natural state, but can come close with practice and knowledge from these teachings. That sounds at least feasible

Yeah, I think that a total return would leave us without a life of our own. Perhaps just an extension of others - totally dependent on others. (I don't even like the sound of that.)

 

But we can simplify our life in many ways.

[Rara]

So...are we ready for Chapter 29?

 

And MH,don't you sleep? Wasn't it the middle of the night when you last replied?? Lol

[Marblehead]

And MH,don't you sleep? Wasn't it the middle of the night when you last replied?? Lol

Yeah, that was a weird one. Fell asleep early at the TV and woke fully awake. I had to get tired enough to go to bed.

 

So...are we ready for Chapter 29?

I think so, yes. I'll break the chapter down into smaller chunks so we can talk about the individual concepts.

 

I'll be back.

[Marblehead]

I'm back. But, regretfully, I have not made a decision as to how to go about speaking to Chapter 29 and the Robber Chih.

 

There are three section within Chapter 29 but only the first section pertains to Robber Chih. The other two sections basically build upon the concepts presented in the first section.

 

Section 1 is very long, too long to actually post here, I think.

 

Can we just talk about the concepts and include just short quotes to support our understandings of the concepts?

[ChiDragon]

Wow...so you mean Burton Watson has used "Sage" to summarise no. 3? And many of us in the west would see no. 1 as a sage (I would, by definintion)...

 

I think the western definition of a "sage" is this:

A mentor in spiritual and philosophical topics who is renowned for profound wisdom