The Father and Son of Taoist Philosophy

[rene]

Nice one MH (-:

 

ZZ sure uses a whole lot of words to *explain* a few lines of LZ

 

LZ 1: The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.

LZ 56:Those who know do not talk. Those who talk do not know.

 

I'm still thinking "LaoZi for Dummies."

 

I do however like that it pokes at the idea one can "find" Tao through cultivation. Nothing wrong with cultivation - as long as it doesn't reinforce (and most paths do) that Tao is something separate that needs to be "found". Big business there - keeping seekers ready to spend too much energy time and $$$ looking for something that was never lost in the first place!

 

 

[Marblehead]

Nice one MH (-:

 

ZZ sure uses a whole lot of words to *explain* a few lines of LZ

 

LZ 1: The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.

LZ 56:Those who know do not talk. Those who talk do not know.

 

I'm still thinking "LaoZi for Dummies."

 

I do however like that it pokes at the idea one can "find" Tao through cultivation. Nothing wrong with cultivation - as long as it doesn't reinforce (and most paths do) that Tao is something separate that needs to be "found". Big business there - keeping seekers ready to spend too much energy time and $$$ looking for something that was never lost in the first place!

Yep. Chuang Tzu was a story teller. Lao Tzu was a stater of facts (as he understood them).

 

One thing Chuang Tzu does is clarify some of the paradoxes found in the TTC.

 

Yes, you found the references nicely. (But that one was easy. Hehehe.)

 

And true, so true. Tao is never lost - it is we who get lost.

[dust]

I waited to post a response as it seems like a trick question

 

This line from the ZZ story actually shares 2 identical phrases with the LZ:

 

夫知者不言，言者不知，故聖人行不言之教

He who knows does not speak, he who speaks does not know; so the sage teaches without talking

-zz

 

是以聖人處無為之事，行不言之教

The sage resides in wuwei, and teaches without talking

- lz 2

 

知者不言，言者不知

He who knows does not speak, he who speaks does not know

- lz 56

 

 

However, I'm not sure of the overall intent of ch.56 in LZ, as most of the rest of it still reads like nonsense to me...

[dust]

I've never cared for Chuang Tzu (or ZZ for those who take offense).

 

Do people take offense? (I use the pinyin simply because this is how I was taught..and because it makes more sense)

 

 

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.

 

My argument is currently that LZ talked about how to govern with relative ease, and ZZ talked about ... well, whatever he liked.. their ideas about Dao were the same, essentially, but the Laozi is a manual not dissimilar to the Art of War (though far more obscure), and the Zhuangzi is a book of poetry and riddles.

 

I'm not sure how you figure that there's no "pretense" in LZ. Most of the chapters are obscure and nearly impossible to translate "correctly" -- i.e. there are so many possible interpretations that we often just don't know for sure what was meant originally..

[Marblehead]

 

However, I'm not sure of the overall intent of ch.56 in LZ, as most of the rest of it still reads like nonsense to me...

Yeah, I have always read Ch. 56 as talking about the Sage who teaches without words (by example).

 

A fair description of Chuang Tzu, IMO.

 

Well, except that Chuang Tzu used a lot of words.

[Marblehead]

Okay. A new one:

 

 

Unseen is the name I give to the origin of the Universe, Heaven, Earth and the Ten Thousand Things. Seen is the name I give to the Universe, Heaven, Earth and the Ten Thousand Things. Hence, unseen, in its mode of non-being, we will see its mysteries. Seen, in its mode of being, we will see its manifestations.

[rene]

(-:

That's Laozi's "Both"

First found in Chapter One.

And elaborated on in the remaining eighty chapters,

for those who needed more.

[Marblehead]

Yeah, that was pretty easy. I guess I will have to make selections that are a little more difficult.

 

 

BTW This is where I got my "Mystery and Manifest". I liked the way it sounded and claimed it as my own.

Edited December 31, 2014 by Marblehead

[rene]

BTW This is where I got my "Mystery and Manifest". I liked the way it sounded and claimed it as my own.

 

I like those words, too. They seem to function well without extraneous flotsam slipping in as frequently occurs with other terms for these two ideas. I like Wu and Yu (You) as well... when all conversing participants are familiar. For most times though M & M works best. (-:

 

Looking forward to your next selection!

 

warm regards

(& Happy New Year!)

[Marblehead]

Yes, I know you would have no trouble with Wu and You. I think M & M keeps the concept simpler. Wu has so many other important uses so that using Wu and You could easily cause confusion.

[rene]

Yes, I know you would have no trouble with Wu and You. I think M & M keeps the concept simpler. Wu has so many other important uses so that using Wu and You could easily cause confusion.

 

It does yes. And, I like the other uses because it reinforces that the coefficient of the concept is based in Mystery. (-:

[ChiDragon]

I have personally always felt that Lao Tzu was more materialistic and........

 

 

Yes, it is a good start to see how each of us understand the philosophies of both philosophers. It seems to me that Zhuang Zi was the one who spoke more about preserving life and enjoy life individualistically; and Lao Zi spoke more about preserving one's virtue by following the principles of Tao.

 

Further thought, claiming Loa Zi was more materialistic was a bad start. There are many chapters in the TTC had emphasized that he is more immaterialistic.

[Marblehead]

It does yes. And, I like the other uses because it reinforces that the coefficient of the concept is based in Mystery. (-:

That's an interesting thought. That is, as "wu" within other Taoist concepts. Lots of Mysteries.

[Marblehead]

 

Further thought, claiming Loa Zi was more materialistic was a bad start. There are many chapters in the TTC had emphasized that he is more immaterialistic.

I know. After the fact I realized that the word "materialistic" was a bad choice. How about "practical"?

[rene]

That's an interesting thought. That is, as "wu" within other Taoist concepts. Lots of Mysteries.

 

Yep. We're just a-trippin over all the damn Mystery around here....

[ChiDragon]

I know. After the fact I realized that the word "materialistic" was a bad choice. How about "practical"?

 

I preferred to use "too idealistic".

[ChiDragon]

夫知者不言，言者不知，故聖人行不言之教

He who knows does not speak, he who speaks does not know; so the sage teaches without talking

夫知者不言，言者不知，故聖人行不言之教

He who knows does not speak, he who speaks does not know; so the sage teaches without talking

From a philosophical and profound interpretation:

If we replace 知 with 智, then it reads

夫智者不言，言者不 智，故聖人行不言之教

 

One who does not issue dubious decrees is wise.

One who do issue dubious decrees is not wise.

Therefore, a wise ruler does not rule with dubious decrees.

 

是以聖人處無為之事，行不言之教

A wise ruler resides in the official affairs with wuwei(non-interference), by not issuing dubious decrees.

 

[Marblehead]

 

I preferred to use "too idealistic".

Well, sure, Anarchists always are too idealistic.

[dust]

From a philosophical and profound interpretation:

If we replace 知 with 智, then it reads

夫智者不言，言者不 智，故聖人行不言之教

 

One who does not issue dubious decrees is wise.

One who do issue dubious decrees is not wise.

Therefore, a wise ruler does not rule with dubious decrees.

 

是以聖人處無為之事，行不言之教

A wise ruler resides in the official affairs with wuwei(non-interference), by not issuing dubious decrees.

 

 

Aha!

 

In the context of the Zhuangzi chapter, it doesn't really work (right?)

 

BUT

 

This could be something very much worth considering in Guodian LZ ch.56!

 

Because it is written as

 

智之者弗言 言之者弗智

[Marblehead]

Next:

 

If Speech Were Really Adequate

 

The dog barks and the cock crows; these things are familiar to everyone. Yet the wisest of us could not express this phenomenon in words, nor foresee what these animals intend to do.

To speak of the existence or absence of a Prime Mover is surely to remain the prisoner of contingent things and to end up in error, and is nothing less than rationalizing from ignorance. I consider the origins; they run away into a limitless past. I seek the ends; they run up into the depths of an endless future. In this ‘limitless’ and this ‘endless’ all discourse cancels out, and as to the problem of the existence or absence of a Prime Mover, it is the starting point for the discourse of futility. To discourse upon that which has no name and no tangible existence is to form a conception only of the vacuity of things. We can speak and think of these problems, but the more one speaks, the farther off the mark one gets.

Tao cannot be affirmed to exist or not to exist. The name Tao is merely an artifice for practical purposes. Hence, whether there is or is not a Prime Mover, the question can have a meaning for the detail of things, but whatever could this mean for the Great Whole? If speech were really adequate, it would exhaust the problem of the Tao in a single day. Since speech is not so, it can just about exhaust in a day whatever concerns a creature or a thing. Tao is something beyond seen creatures; neither speech nor silence can convey it. Let us banish both speech and silence; we have reached the farthest limit of thought.

Edited January 3, 2015 by Marblehead

[Marblehead]

On Perceptible Quality

By “perceptible quality” we mean the differences between square and round, short and long, thick and thin, sturdy and fragile. When these qualities take definite form in something, this thing can be told of. Every living thing that has definite qualities is subject to the alterations of existing and disappearing, life and death, youth and old age. Every thing that is subject to such alterations cannot be said to be permanent. Only a thing that existed before the Universe and continues to exist without wasting away or aging can be said to be permanent. Now, this permanent thing is not subject to change and has no definite qualities; having no definite qualities and no spatiality, it cannot be told of. The Holy Man, observing its obscure emptiness on the one hand, and considering its universal effects on the other, gives it the makeshift name Tao and can hence discourse upon it. This is why it is written, “The Tao that can be described is not the Permanent Tao.”

[Bubbles]

Just a post to say this is a very interesting thread. Thanks Marblehead!

Wish I had more time to ponder over the subject and possibly contribute to it.

[Marblehead]

Just a post to say this is a very interesting thread. Thanks Marblehead!

Wish I had more time to ponder over the subject and possibly contribute to it.

Thanks. It's hard to get a good discussion going regarding Chuang Tzu. Too much reading to do. I have decided to just continue with this thought of mine of presenting stories from Chuang Tzu that support something in the TTC.

 

If I get feedback that would be nice, if not, no problem, I will just continue doing my thing.

[Bubbles]

Thanks. It's hard to get a good discussion going regarding Chuang Tzu. Too much reading to do. I have decided to just continue with this thought of mine of presenting stories from Chuang Tzu that support something in the TTC.

 

If I get feedback that would be nice, if not, no problem, I will just continue doing my thing.

 

Yes, a lot of reading to do..

 

Go ahead, please, a thread like this one is never a waste of time !

[Marblehead]

In the Beginning Of Beginnings

In the Beginning of Beginnings there was Void, the Nameless. This Nameless was One, without Body, without Form. This One, this thing in whom all find power to exist, is Tao. Within Tao is the Life Force. This Life Force is the Formless, the Undivided, the Spirit. (The Spirit, the Life Force of Tao, is universal; the Soul is individual.)

From the acts of this Formless on Form come the Existents, the things of the universe, each according to its inner principle. Here Form embraces and cherishes Spirit. Form and Spirit work together as one, blending and manifesting their characters. This is Nature.

He who obeys Nature returns through Form and Formless to the One, and in the One joins the unbegun Beginning; the joining of Sameness. The Sameness is Void. The Void is Infinite.

The bird opens its beak and sings its song, then the beak comes together again in Silence. So Form and Spirit shall reunite in Void. And so, like the closing of the bird’s beak after its song, Heaven and Earth will come together in the Unbegun, and all will be foolishness, all will be unknown, all will be like the lights of an idiot! To obey is to close the beak and fall into the Unbeginning.