The Father and Son of Taoist Philosophy

[dust]

A first realization for me while reading your post: I think it can be said that the two were almost identical where it comes to what they spoke of Tao. The differences come in when they speak of Te concepts.

 

Yeah.. for certain, their metaphysical idea of Tao is very very similar

Your first few posts summed up nicely many of their differing ideas on how far one can 'know' it, and how to apply knowledge of it

 

Might we say that ZZ's ideas are more sprawling? I get a definite stream-of-consciousness vibe when reading him, where one story will jump right into another, not-entirely-related, one. And there are a few bits that seem to... not contradict, but not entirely coalesce, either..

 

 

Do not be an embodier of fame; do not be a storehouse of schemes; do not be an undertaker of projects; do not be a proprietor of wisdom. Embody to the fullest what has no end and wander where there is no trail. Hold on to all that you have received from Heaven but do not think you have gotten anything. Be empty, that is all. The Perfect Man uses his mind like a mirror - going after nothing, welcoming nothing, responding but not storing. Therefore he can win out over things and not hurt himself.

 

The emperor of the South Sea was called Shu [brief], the emperor of the North Sea was called Hu [sudden], and the emperor of the central region was called Hun-tun [Chaos]. Shu and Hu from time to time came together for a meeting in the territory of Hun-tun, and Hun-tun treated them very generously. Shu and Hu discussed how they could repay his kindness. "All men," they said, "have seven openings so they can see, hear, eat, and breathe. But Hun-tun alone doesn't have any. Let's trying boring him some!" Every day they bored another hole, and on the seventh day Hun-tun died.

 

[ChiDragon]

夫道有情有信 For in the Way there is (feeling) and (trust)

What this classical saying is:
This Tao is what we're talking about now in its realm(有情) which is his proof of existence(有信).
情 is like in 情境, 境界(realm) .
信 is like some proof to make believe or trust.


In Sun Tzu......
Classic:
兵之情主速:

Modern:
兵之情：用兵的情势(under any military strategy or situation)
主速: rapidity in mobilization is the main key.

兵之情主速: The most effective military strategy is the rapidity in mobilization.

Edited December 29, 2014 by ChiDragon

[dust]

Lin YT translates:

 

For Tao has its inner reality and its evidences

[rene]

dustybejing - thanks for your reply!

[dust]

This Tao is what we're talking about now in its realm(有情) which is his proof of existence(有信).

 

情 is like in 情境, 境界(realm) .

信 is like some proof to make believe or trust.

 

 

Yes.. you're right.

 

I should have got there much sooner! I blame Legge..

 

On that note, we can confirm that LZ and ZZ's idea of Dao is very much identical...

Edited December 29, 2014 by dustybeijing

[dawei]

In the spirit of GMP's post...

 

Chuangtzu - mystery emphasis

Confucious - manifest emphasis

Laozi - both

 

Maybe C & C took what they could relate to from the wholeness of The Laozi and created from there. One source, arising in two different directions. Sounds familiar, heh.

 

I think we should leave Confucius out of it... ZZ was fond enough to show that he deviated widely from The Great Way.

 

As for LZ and ZZ:

 

LZ = Both/And = Emphasizes duality within the One; Thus one gets: One, Two, Three. Some priority to Yin.

 

A major theme is the source and the ten thousand and the return to the source. Source and Parts.

 

ZZ = Neither/Nor = Deconstructs Dualism and Dao ; Neither 'this' nor 'that' has any priority nor relative importance. Dao cannot be One (or even non-being) as naming it would make it a thing and it becomes really Two (Dao as One is Two).

 

A major theme is the transformation [itself] of things. Process of the whole.

 

Your Wang wrote of ZZ's Dao, that it does not claim it's own existence.

 

Chan famously said of ZZ. that his way is "equalizing all things and all opinions"

 

On that note, we can confirm that LZ and ZZ's idea of Dao is very much identical...

 

So it may be time to discuss how they are dissimilar... I'll relate some quotes from ZZ who treats names (including Dao) as simply representing 'things' and not a representation of reality. He tries to express the wholeness without giving it a name but rather describing it and negating it.

 

 

Heaven [tiān] and earth were born at the same time I was, the ten thousand things are one with me.

 

So [the person of far reaching vision] has no use [for categories], but relegates all to the constant. The constant is the useful; the useful is the passable; the passable is the successful; and with success, all is accomplished. She relies upon this alone, relies upon it and does not know she is doing so. This is called the Way

 

The True [person] of ancient times knew nothing of loving life, knew nothing of hating death. He emerged [from nature] without delight; he went back in without a fuss. He came briskly, he went briskly, and that was all. He didn't forget where he began; he didn't try to find out where he would end. He received something and took pleasure in it; he forgot about it and handed it back again. This is what I call not using the mind to repel the Way, not using man to help out Heaven. This is what I call the True [Person]

 

There is a beginning. There is a not yet beginning to be a beginning. There is a not yet beginning to be a not yet beginning to be a beginning. There is being. There is nonbeing. There is a not yet beginning to be nonbeing. Suddenly there is being and nonbeing. But between this being and nonbeing, I don't really know which is being and which is nonbeing.

 

Primordially, it is the nonbeing of nonbeing, which is nameless

 

There is that which comes before heaven and earth, but is it a thing? That which treats things as things is not a thing. Things that come forth can never precede all other things, because there were already things existing then; and before that, too, there were already things existing – so on without end.

I have heard of letting the world be, of leaving it alone; I have never heard of governing the world. You let it be for fear of corrupting the inborn nature of the world; you leave it alone for fear of distracting the Virtue of the world. If the nature of the world is not corrupted, if the Virtue of the world is not distracted, why should there be any governing of the world?

[rene]

LZ = Both/And

 

ZZ = Neither/Nor

 

dawai - 10,000 thanks for that.

 

You just nailed the reason for my distaste of ZZ.

Too similar to the traditions that push emptiness at the expense of the fullness - and vice versa.

 

Looks like I'm just a Laozi girl. (-:

 

*************

 

The rest of your post is wonderful as well;

and I'll continue reading/replying where warranted

but my primary curiosity has been satisfied.

Both.

 

 

[Marblehead]

Might we say that ZZ's ideas are more sprawling? I get a definite stream-of-consciousness vibe when reading him, where one story will jump right into another, not-entirely-related, one. And there are a few bits that seem to... not contradict, but not entirely coalesce, either..

Yeah, I have already, a number of times, suggested that Chuang Tzu was a Anarchist and really haven't gotten any argument. Based on what you mentioned above I could like suggest that he was one who lived (and wrote) spontaneously.

 

I write like that sometimes in that I will be one a train of thought and something switches me to a different track, different but similar concept.

[Marblehead]

Lin YT translates:

 

For Tao has its inner reality and its evidences

Close to how Watson translates. I like Lin's inclusion of "inner". I even think that it is important.

[Marblehead]

dawai - 10,000 thanks for that.

 

You just nailed the reason for my distaste of ZZ.

Too similar to the traditions that push emptiness at the expense of the fullness - and vice versa.

 

Looks like I'm just a Laozi girl. (-:

Wait a minute!!! You've not heard my perspective on this yet!

[dust]

You just nailed the reason for my distaste of ZZ.

Too similar to the traditions that push emptiness at the expense of the fullness - and vice versa.

 

Looks like I'm just a Laozi girl. (-:

 

(adopts Aziz Ansari voice) Noooooooooooo!!!

 

(not expecting anyone to get the reference)

 

 

 

 

So [the person of far reaching vision] has no use [for categories], but relegates all to the constant. The constant is the useful; the useful is the passable; the passable is the successful; and with success, all is accomplished. She relies upon this alone, relies upon it and does not know she is doing so. This is called the Way

 

Yeeeeess! Actually I think this part is worth quoting further:

 

 

可乎可，不可乎不可。道行之而成，物謂之而然。惡乎然？然於然。惡乎不然？不然於不然。物固有所然，物固有所可。無物不然，無物不可。故為是舉莛與楹，厲與西施，恢恑憰怪，道通為一

 

What is acceptable we call acceptable; what is unacceptable we call unacceptable. A road is made by people walking on it; things are so because they are called so. What makes them so? Making them so makes them so. What makes them not so? Making them not so makes them not so. Things all must have that which is so; things all must have that which is acceptable. There is nothing that is not so, nothing that is not acceptable. For this reason, whether you point to a little stalk or a great pillar, a leper or the beautiful Hsi-shih, things ribald and shady or things grotesque and strange, the Way makes them all into one.

 

其分也，成也；其成也，毀也。凡物無成與毀，復通為一。唯達者知通為一，為是不用而寓諸庸。庸也者，用也；用也者，通也；通也者，得也。適得而幾矣。因是 已。已而不知其然，謂之道

 

Their dividedness is their completeness; their complete­ness is their impairment. No thing is either complete or impaired, but all are made into one again. Only the man of far­ reaching vision knows how to make them into one, and relegates all to the constant. The constant is the useful; the useful is the passable; the passable is the successful; and with success, all is accomplished. He relies upon this alone, relies upon it and does not know he is doing so. This is called the Way.

 

故為是舉莛與楹，厲與西施，恢恑憰怪，道通為一勞神明為一，而不知其同也，謂之朝三。何謂朝三？曰狙公賦芧，曰：「朝三而莫四。」眾狙皆怒。曰：「然則朝四而莫三。」眾狙皆 悅。名實未虧，而喜怒為用，亦因是也。是以聖人和之以是非，而休乎天鈞，是之謂兩行

 

But to wear out your brain trying to make things into one without realizing that they are all the same - this is called "three in the morning." What do I mean by "three in the morning"? When the monkey trainer was handing out acorns, he said, "You get three in the morning and four at night." This made all the monkeys furious. "Well, then," he said, "you get four in the morning and three at night." The monkeys were all delighted. There was no change in the reality behind the words, and yet the monkeys responded with joy and anger. Let them, if they want to. So the sage harmonizes with both right and wrong and rests in Heaven the Equalizer. This is called walking two roads.

 

I don't think this -- especially the highlighted blue bit -- is at odds with Laozi:

 

天下皆智之為也亞已 When beauty is known as beauty, ugliness is born

皆智善此丌不善已 When good is known, this gives birth to not-good.

又亡之相生也 Life and death give birth to each other,

難惕之相成也 Difficult and easy complete each other,

長短之相形也 Long and short determine each other,

高下之相浧也 High and low surpass each other,

音聲之相和也 Voice and sound harmonize each other,

先後之相墮也 Front and back follow each other;

是以聖人居亡為之事 As the wise man lives without acting,

行不言之教 And teaches without talking,

萬勿作而弗怠也 Life does without beginning,

為而弗志也 Acts without ambition,

成而弗居 Succeeds and does not dwell;

夫唯弗居也是以弗去也 Not dwelling and not leaving are the same

 

I think that Zhuangzi says very similar things in a more roundabout, humorous, playful, spontaneous, sprawling way.

Edited December 30, 2014 by dustybeijing

[Marblehead]

From the practical side of Chuang Tzu we read such sayings as:

 

The duck's legs are short, but to stretch them out would worry him; the crane's legs are long, but to cut them down would make him sad. What is long by nature needs no cutting off; what is short by nature needs no stretching.

 

(Leave the nature of things alone!)

[rene]

From the practical side of Chuang Tzu we read such sayings as:

 

The duck's legs are short, but to stretch them out would worry him; the crane's legs are long, but to cut them down would make him sad. What is long by nature needs no cutting off; what is short by nature needs no stretching.

 

(Leave the nature of things alone!)

 

Maybe ZZ is basically a "LaoTzu for Dummmies" book ?

 

Laozi 29:

Do you think you can take over the universe and improve it?

I do not believe it can be done.

The universe is sacred.

You cannot improve it.

If you try to change it, you will ruin it.

If you try to hold it, you will lose it.

 

***********

 

And I'm not goin anywhere MH. Your ideas are still read by me. Like they have been off and on for the last 15 years.

And you know i've been 'laoist' since my first breath. All is well. (-:

[Marblehead]

Maybe ZZ is basically a "LaoTzu for Dummmies" book ?

Actually, that would be a fair association. (If every dummy bought a copy it would be a best seller over-night.)

 

And I'm not goin anywhere MH. Your ideas are still read by me. Like they have been off and on for the last 15 years.

And you know i've been 'laoist' since my first breath. All is well. (-:

I know all that. Yeah. You will always be a Laoist.

[Marblehead]

I'll bet Lao Tzu never said anything like this: (Watson translation)

 

 

Chuang Tzu held on to the fishing pole and, without turning his head, said, "I have heard that there is a sacred tortoise in Ch'u that has been dead for three thousand years. The king keeps it wrapped in cloth and boxed, and stores it in the ancestral temple. Now would this tortoise rather be dead and have its bones left behind and honored? Or would it rather be alive and dragging its tail in the mud?"

"It would rather be alive and dragging its tail in the mud," said the two officials.

Chuang Tzu said, "Go away! I'll drag my tail in the mud!"

[dawei]

Wait a minute!!! You've not heard my perspective on this yet!

 

And I feel like ZZ may tend to support my other thread that Dao is not The One ... */ Exit stage left

 

I don't think this -- especially the highlighted blue bit -- is at odds with Laozi:

 

Yea, the idea of 'dissimilar' or 'at odds with' are not really proper way of showing simple differences in their language.

 

I think that Zhuangzi says very similar things in a more roundabout, humorous, playful, spontaneous, sprawling way.

 

Youru Wang wrote:

 

Zhuangzi evidently favors a kind of paradoxical language, which he calls diaogui in chapter 2. No matter how bizarre it appears, a great sage, according to Zhuangzi, understands such a language. Elsewhere he also indicates that he is good at “absurd speech” (miuyou zhishuo), “extravagant words” (huangtang zhiyan) and so on.

A more comprehensive characterization is Zhuangzi’s use of language as “goblet words” (zhiyan), namely, as those that are like a goblet that tips when full and rights itself when empty. They adapt to and follow along with changes in things and people. They are not fixed signifiers or signifieds. Therefore, though they seem outlandish or absurd, deviating from common sense or formal logic, they are in harmony with what is natural (what is spontaneously so), with the flux of all things and circumstances. These characterizations of the peculiar use of language confirm that Zhuangzi does allow for a positive role that language plays.

[Marblehead]

And I feel like ZZ may tend to support my other thread that Dao is not The One ... */ Exit stage left

Actually, he never did arrive at a conclusion. Just like his butterfly story as well as many others. He allows us to form our own conclusions. (One of the positive attributes of an Anarchist.)

[dust]

Yea, the idea of 'dissimilar' or 'at odds with' are not really proper way of showing simple differences in their language.

 

?

 

Not sure I understand...

[dawei]

?

 

Not sure I understand...

 

I mean that they are not so dissimilar as they are simply using different modes of language to basically say the same thing... I think they express it on different levels though. IMO, in regards to Dao: LZ tends to construct and ZZ to deconstruct.

 

One example would be cosmology: I think ZZ who tries to deconstruct Dao by showing no priority of 'this' or 'that' duality (it is interdependent and thus always requires both so there is no need to talk of either one), in the process he mentions 'that which is beyond'. This is what he seems to call the non-existent of the non-existent.

[Marblehead]

Okay, game time if anyone wants to play.

 

I will make a post of something Lao Tzu said and we can see what, if anything, Chuang Tzu said about it.

 

(I already have a correlation of this so I will hold on presenting the Chuang Tzu responses until others have had a chance to respond.)

[dawei]

I'll bet Lao Tzu never said anything like this: (Watson translation)

 

 

Chuang Tzu held on to the fishing pole and, without turning his head, said, "I have heard that there is a sacred tortoise in Ch'u that has been dead for three thousand years. The king keeps it wrapped in cloth and boxed, and stores it in the ancestral temple. Now would this tortoise rather be dead and have its bones left behind and honored? Or would it rather be alive and dragging its tail in the mud?"

 

"It would rather be alive and dragging its tail in the mud," said the two officials.

 

Chuang Tzu said, "Go away! I'll drag my tail in the mud!"

 

Ch. 20 is the closest which comes to mind

 

Okay, game time if anyone wants to play.

 

I will make a post of something Lao Tzu said and we can see what, if anything, Chuang Tzu said about it.

 

(I already have a correlation of this so I will hold on presenting the Chuang Tzu responses until others have had a chance to respond.)

 

I would be inclined to quote ZZ and find something in LZ... as most probably know LZ more... or switch back and forth... or just don't listen to me.

[Marblehead]

Ch. 20 is the closest which comes to mind

Fits in somewhat. The preamble of the quote as well as the afterwards was basically speaking about taking care of one's body and not putting one's self in harm's way.

 

I would be inclined to quote ZZ and find something in LZ... as most probably know LZ more... or switch back and forth... or just don't listen to me.

Hehehe. My game - my way.

 

Actually my concordance is a one-way only document. The entire thing is (or was before the upgrade) on this forum in threads titled "Philosophical Taoism". I did a search a while back and most of the threads were missing.

 

It took me a very long time to set it up for my own use but I have shared it with a few people.

 

Let me think about your suggestion a little to see if doing it the other way will work.

[Marblehead]

Okay. Let's try one backward per Dawei's suggestion.

 

(What I have is drawn from many different translations so may or may not be able to identify the translator. Some of the work is drawn from books I checked out from libraries and don't even have access to them now. This applies to both Chuang Tzu and Lao Tzu.)

 

I will present a Chuang Tzu story. (Regretfully some are rather long.) The story will apply to at least a section of one of the TTC Chapters.

 

On to the first story in the next post.

[Marblehead]

The Tao That Cannot Be Spoken, Described Or Discussed

 

Knowledge wandered north looking for Tao, over the Dark Sea and up the Invisible Mountain. There on the mountain he met Non-Doing, the Speechless One.

He inquired, “Please inform me, Sir, by what system of thought and what technique of meditation I can apprehend Tao? By what renunciation or what solitary retirement may I rest in Tao? Where must I start, what road must I follow to reach Tao?”

Such were his three questions. Non-Doing, the Speechless One, made no reply. Not only did he not reply, he did not even know how to reply!

Knowledge swung south to the Bright Sea and climbed Luminous Mountain, sometimes called “Doubt’s End”. There he met Act-On-Impulse, the Inspired Prophet, and asked the same questions.

“Ah,” cried the Inspired One, “I have the answers, and I will reveal them!” But just as he was about to tell everything, he forgot all he had in mind. Knowledge got no reply.

So Knowledge went at last to the palace of the Emperor, and asked his questions. The Emperor replied, “To exercise no thought and follow no way of meditation is the first step toward understanding Tao. To dwell nowhere and rest in nothing is the first step toward resting in Tao. To start from nowhere and follow no road is the first step toward attaining Tao.”

Knowledge replied, “You know this and now I know it. But the other two, they did not know it. What about that? Who is right?”

The Emperor replied, “Only Non-Doing, the Speechless One, was perfectly right. He did not know, or at least, could not reveal what he knew. Act-On-Impulse, the Inspired Prophet, only seemed right because he had forgotten. As for us, we come nowhere near being right, since we have the answers. As the ancients expressed it, ‘For he who knows does not speak, he who speaks does not know.’ and, ‘The Wise Man gives instruction without the use of speech.’”

“The one who thinks he does not know is profound, and the one who thinks he knows is shallow. The former deals with the inner reality, the latter with appearance.”

“Tao cannot be heard; that which is heard is not Tao. Tao cannot be seen; that which is seen is not Tao. Tao cannot be touched; that which can be touched is not Tao. Do you realize that which is invisible in all the visible things? Tao cannot be named.”

“If someone answers in reply to a question about Tao, he does not know Tao. Even the one who asks about Tao does not understand Tao. Tao cannot be asked about, and to the question, there is no answer. To ask about that which should not be asked is to land in extremities. To answer a question that should not be answered is to fail to recognize the inner reality. If then those who do not recognize the inner reality try to answer questioners who land in extremities, such people have neither observed the workings of the Universe, nor do they realize the Ultimate Source. Therefore they cannot travel in the realm of the Great Void.”

This story got back to Act-On-Impulse who agreed with the Emperor’s way of putting it.

It is not reported that Non-Doing ever heard of the matter or made any comment.

Edited January 3, 2015 by Marblehead

[Aaron]

I've never cared for Chuang Tzu (or ZZ for those who take offense). My argument has consistently been that Lao Tzu taught about the sage and Chuang Tzu thought of himself as a sage. In other words, Lao Tzu always seemed to be interested in presenting his message without pretense, Chuang Tzu was a man who's message was founded upon pretense.

Edited December 31, 2014 by Aaron