The Father and Son of Taoist Philosophy

[Marblehead]

Great , that's out of the way. 

So I guess we can get to the next one.

 

I'll be back.

[Stosh]

( reasons for my post being as such) 

 

I am unable to answer that question.  All I can say is that Chuang Tzu did search for answers to the questions common people had.  Lao Tzu spoke to the person who would rule the world.

 

That is why I have said before that I really couldn't get a handle on Taoist Philosophy until after I read the Chuang Tzu.

 

Sure, Chuang Tzu knew there was nothing missing.  But he searched to understand and share his understanding through made-up stories that represented real life.  Lao Tzu's life wasn't real to me.

 

We should also remember that Wang Bi really introduces the 'mystery' and metaphysical aspects much more than any previous interpreter.  Lest we forget, he was a very young Confucian 

 

“We have a little time today,” said the disciple to the Sage.  “May I ask what is the great Tao?”

The Sage replied, “Give a ceremonial bath to your mind!  Cleanse your soul!  Throw away your material wisdom!  Tao is dark and elusive, impossible to describe.  However, I will outline it for you.

[Stosh]

“Therefore come with me to the land of Nowhere where all the many things are One.  There at last we might speak of what has no limitation and no end.  Come with me to the land of Non-Doing.

 

Consequently, he who wants to have right without wrong, order without disorder, does not understand the principles of Heaven and Earth.  He does not know how things hang together.  Can a man cling only to Heaven and know nothing of Earth?  They are correlative.  To know one is to know the other.  To refuse one is to refuse both.  Can a man cling to the positive without any negative?  If he claims to do so he is a rogue or a madman.

 

This here ah, this here is grist for the mill !

Edited February 12, 2016 by Stosh

[Marblehead]

Couldn't wait until I got back, hey?  Hehehe.

 

You did good Stosh. 

 

Any special part of these two post you want to speak to?

 

The Sage replied, “Give a ceremonial bath to your mind!  Cleanse your soul!  Throw away your material wisdom!  Tao is dark and elusive, impossible to describe.  However, I will outline it for you.

 

I actually like this a lot.

[Stosh]

Couldn't wait until I got back, hey?  Hehehe.

 

You did good Stosh. 

 

Any special part of these two post you want to speak to?

 

The Sage replied, “Give a ceremonial bath to your mind!  Cleanse your soul!  Throw away your material wisdom!  Tao is dark and elusive, impossible to describe.  However, I will outline it for you.

 

I actually like this a lot.

I enjoy that , candid-ness? too , ( seems tolerant and humble to me, like joking with the audience,, perhaps ironic , that he isnt pinned down to even his own description ) 

 

Nah , nothing there I want to get involved with though , its umm above my pay grade.

Edited February 12, 2016 by Stosh

[Marblehead]

One of the beautiful things I found when reading Chuang Tzu was that he rarely arrived at a conclusion.  This leaves room for the reader to question further and establish their own conclusions.

[Marblehead]

The next one was from Rocky.  I'll copy/paste the entire post:

 

 

This struck a chord with me, thanks!

I didnt read CT until after a decade of periodically studying the TTC and to me the two clashed a lot, but later on levelled out. This thread is giving me a lot of new takes on the two together and i'm liking this Dialogues rendition MH!

Lao Tzu doesnt feel real no but he's bending himself out of shape even trying to explain what he sees, never mind that people have been misquoting him for thousands of years with the "but Daddy said...", and i think that if he was real he really was torn between not wanting to put the words down and seeing the necessity of answering the questions, out of respect to the asker. But i romanticize a lot so thats just me.

Here follows a personal reflection, never mind.

I think the recipient is the same person still, but as has been said, they approach the issue differently.

Lao Tzu spoke to the king yes, but i'm still sure he was also making fun of peoples lack of ability in getting over oneself. But if you're a true person or walk the path true you're more of a king or a queen than royals. And actually so is everyone else, only being more irresponsible in their rule, thinking there is reason and coherence to be found in the ways of existance. His irony comes from his "detachment" (for lack of a better word).

So he speaks to those who rule, to those of us who claim to be rulers and those of us who think we are above thinking of ourselves as kings and queens. He has the patience of a parent and laughs behind his moustasche because he cant help it, we appear as well meaning but silly, but we listen and he's giving us huuuuge amounts of face by calling us rulers and if we really listen this humbles us and we allow him to poke a little fun at us.

Chuang Tzu tries to level with us, speak clarly, he's the older sibling, he knows the arrogance of kings already and it vexes him, but still he tries and we appreciate his effort. He gives us face and respect in an intimate context. He's not impressed nor does he wish to be. We asked a question and he wants to answer, be too cannot resist the temptation of jest, but his jest is more frustrated because he still feels a little powerless in the face of injustice. It's just part of his nature.

But they still speak to us younger family members, the would be and factual emperors of existance. Thats how i feel. I dont get even half and half the time i feel like i'm eavesdropping on a conversation when i read any of them. I'm there and being given huge amounts of respect for showing up and i deserve nothing of it and i cant begin to grasp. "It's okay, no rush" i tell myself, but have a hard time listening to that advice.         

 

 

I'll just leave it here for now and speak to it tomorrow.  Any others may speak first though.  This is open discussion time now.

[Marblehead]

Lao Tzu spoke to the king yes, but i'm still sure he was also making fun of peoples lack of ability in getting over oneself. But if you're a true person or walk the path true you're more of a king or a queen than royals. And actually so is everyone else, only being more irresponsible in their rule, thinking there is reason and coherence to be found in the ways of existance. His irony comes from his "detachment" (for lack of a better word).

 

So he speaks to those who rule, to those of us who claim to be rulers and those of us who think we are above thinking of ourselves as kings and queens. He has the patience of a parent and laughs behind his moustasche because he cant help it, we appear as well meaning but silly, but we listen and he's giving us huuuuge amounts of face by calling us rulers and if we really listen this humbles us and we allow him to poke a little fun at us.

Yes, I have mentioned before that Lao Tzu was speaking more to the educated, rulers of the court.  But this can also be taken to a personal level so that it can be applied by the individual in ruling their own life.

 

The story goes that he was the "keeper of records".  A task that required great organization skills.  He was an employee of the court.  I think he wanted the court to operate in a well organized manner.

 

And really, this isn't a bad way to live our life during our early years so that we have something to show for our self when we reach old age.

 

 

Chuang Tzu tries to level with us, speak clarly, he's the older sibling, he knows the arrogance of kings already and it vexes him, but still he tries and we appreciate his effort. He gives us face and respect in an intimate context. He's not impressed nor does he wish to be. We asked a question and he wants to answer, be too cannot resist the temptation of jest, but his jest is more frustrated because he still feels a little powerless in the face of injustice. It's just part of his nature.

 

But they still speak to us younger family members, the would be and factual emperors of existance. Thats how i feel. I dont get even half and half the time i feel like i'm eavesdropping on a conversation when i read any of them. I'm there and being given huge amounts of respect for showing up and i deserve nothing of it and i cant begin to grasp. "It's okay, no rush" i tell myself, but have a hard time listening to that advice.        

Yes, a person of many experiences trying to convey his experiences with the common folks.

 

He really didn't speak that much about government.  But he did acknowledge its existence and in my opinion, its necessity.

 

But he wanted to wander free of all ties that bind.  IMO a true Anarchist.  Keep clear of government and your life will be much easier to live.

[Marblehead]

The next one I will speak to is from Stosh on page 12, Post #189.

 

Although I did respond to the question I feel a more thorough response would be in order.  It will take a little time to put something together though.  A little later.

[Stosh]

I forgot my password , and the phone forgot  ,Ill reset it ,,, so , no rush.

[Marblehead]

Actually, I am having a difficult time deciding on how to approach this.

 

The section begins with post #186 - "Prefer Femininity"

 

It speaks to the duality of Yin/Yang - Restive/Active - Mystery/Manifest - Spiritual/Physical

 

To know the latter but prefer the former.

 

Hang in there with me.

[Marblehead]

Okay.  Let's start by looking at the actual chapter of the Tao Te Ching that this is found.  The following is an interesting translation:

 

Chapter 28  Translation by Chu Ta-Kao

 

28.1
He who knows the masculine and yet keeps to the feminine
Will become a channel drawing all the world towards it;
Being a channel of the world, he will not be severed from the eternal virtue,
And then he can return again to the state of infancy.

 

28.2
He who knows the white and yet keeps to the black
Will become the standard of the world;
Being the standard of the world, with him eternal virtue will never falter,
And then he can return again to the absolute.

 

28.3
He who knows honour and yet keeps to humility
Will become a valley that receives all the world into it;
Being a valley of the world, with him eternal virtue
Will be complete, And then he can return again to wholeness.

 

28.4
Wholeness, when divided, will make vessels of utility;
These when employed by the Sage will become officials and chiefs.
However, for a great function no discrimination is needed.

 

 

 

Then we have Chuang Tzu's response.  I will use Burton Watson's translation.  It is the first story of Chapter Five.

 

IN LU THERE WAS A MAN named Wang Tai who had had his foot cut off.' He had as many followers gathered around him as Confucius.

 

Ch'ang Chi asked Confucius, "This Wang T'ai who's lost a foot - how does he get to divide up Lu with you, Master, and make half of it his disciples? He doesn't stand up and teach, he doesn't sit down and discuss, yet they go to him empty and come home full. Does he really have some wordless teaching, some formless way of bringing the mind to completion? What sort of man is he?"

 

Confucius said, "This gentleman is a sage. It's just that I've been tardy and haven't gone to see him yet. But if I go to him as my teacher, how much more should those who are not my equals! Why only the state of Lu? I'll bring the whole world along and we'll all become his followers!"

 

Ch'ang Chi said, "If he's lost a foot and is still superior to the Master, then how far above the common run of men he must be! A man like that - what unique way does he have of using his mind?"

 

Confucius said, "Life and death are great affairs, and yet they are no change to him. Though heaven and earth flop over and fall down, it is no loss to him. He sees clearly into what has no falsehood and does not shift with things. He takes it as fate that things should change, and he holds fast to the source."

 

"What do you mean by that?" asked Ch'ang Chi.

 

Confucius said, "If you look at them from the point of view of their differences, then there is liver and gall, Ch'u and Yueh. But if you look at them from the point of view of their sameness, then the ten thousand things are all one. A man like this doesn't know what his ears or eyes should approve - he lets his mind play in the harmony of virtue. As for things, he sees them as one and does not see their loss. He regards the loss of a foot as a lump of earth thrown away."

 

Ch'ang Chi said, "In the way he goes about it, he uses his knowledge to get at his mind, and uses his mind to get at the constant mind. Why should things gather around him?"

 

Confucius said, "Men do not mirror themselves in running water - they mirror themselves in still water. Only what is still can still the stillness of other things. Of those that receive life from the earth, the pine and cypress alone are best - they stay as green as ever in winter or summer. Of those that receive life from Heaven, Yao and Shun alone are best - they stand at the head of the ten thousand things. Luckily they were able to order their lives, and thereby order the lives of other things. Proof that a man is holding fast to the beginning lies in the fact of his fearlessness. A brave soldier will plunge alone into the midst of nine armies. He seeks fame and can bring himself to this. How much more, then, is possible for a man who governs Heaven and earth, stores up the ten thousand things, lets the six parts of his body be only a dwelling, makes ornaments of his ears and eyes, unifies the knowledge of what he knows, and in his mind never tastes death. He will soon choose the day and ascend far off. Men may become his followers, but how could he be willing to bother himself about things?"

 

 

 

So then, Stosh's question was: Wouldnt his disciples arrive full, and depart empty?

My response: Hopefully.

Stosh's reply: That isn't what it says though.

 

My reply: But it was the one man who didn't understand who said it.

 

Stosh's reply: oh

 

 

 

Did we have an understanding?  I'm not sure.

 

Any comments or questions?

Edited February 15, 2016 by Marblehead

[Stosh]

Legge's translation ?  ..   "Who knows his manhood's strength,
Yet still his female feebleness  maintains;

 

Well this here may be someones opinion , or , it may the very best of literal translations ,or it may be someones addition , but regardless, it doesn't make sense to tell someone to be or act feeble and at the same time to say its not a strength ,and also at the same time declare its virtue. Basically its a confused sentiment IMO.

If the person saying full or empty , was supposed to be confused , or if its just the translator , I dunno. It doesn't matter. I figure you get the point either way. 

 

Liu Quixuan 

 

"One keeps weakness while knowing what strength is,
And serves as the humblest brook for the world.
Being the humblest, one can receive best
Until one returns to be the weakest infant.
One keeps black while knowing what white is,
And serves as a basic model for the world.

 

Regardless of the means that the expressions are translated , the basic relationship is preserved , that the Yang stuff considered polemically a virtue normally ,, can also be seen as a problem and the Yin stuff can also be seen as  virtue as well. 

 

The Subjective opinions folks have about virtue , lies in our heads , therefore they arent real objectively speaking. Being bigger may be seen as better , but a big ant wouldnt be able to hold itself up on those skinny legs , likewise a teeny lion wouldnt be able to kill food ,, presumably. If Circumstance defines what traits would stand as virtue , then one is simply being practical , wise etc 

 

It seems to go by the boards that the logic , is inverse to the Norm , and that there is a Norm , which goes without saying. 

Ex . being strong is good. Duh ! Being smart is helpful, Duh ! 

But here's some guys saying being strong is weakness , being stupid is helpful .. and this is wise ! 

If the Duh statements were wise , then the inverse of them , should be considered idiotic. BUT thats not the case.,, apparently. 

The argument is being made that that which we consider virtue normally , is just subjective opinion, though they are taking a polemic stance about which to pick. 

Edited February 15, 2016 by Stosh

[Marblehead]

Okay.  You are pointing out a contradiction I have never accepted.  This is why I transform the word "weak" to "flexible".

 

The infant's body is flexible.  The infant's mind is flexible.  Sure, its body will become strong.  This will be a good thing.  Its mind will become strong.  This might be a bad thing.

 

There are different processes for different life forms.  To remain weak is not an asset.  To remain flexible is.  To be healthy and strong is an asset.  To constantly exert one's strength will lead to disaster.  Better to remain inactive when there is nothing that needs be done.  This way one will have reserve energy when something does need be done.

 

 

I have still yet not completed a reading of Legge's translation of Chuang Tzu.  It just doesn't feel real to me.

 

I don't even feel comfortable with Liu Quixuan's translation above because of the use of the word "weakness".

 

In my opinion it is the harmony between Yin and Yang that is important.  Too much of either is not good.  But consider, I do not view Yin as weakness but rather of restive.  Great difference between the two.

 

 

And then, the key concept in that original passage I posted was that we should not confuse the physical with the spiritual.  Physical being Yang and Spiritual being Yin.

[Stosh]

Okay.  You are pointing out a contradiction I have never accepted.  This is why I transform the word "weak" to "flexible".

 

The infant's body is flexible.  The infant's mind is flexible.  Sure, its body will become strong.  This will be a good thing.  Its mind will become strong.  This might be a bad thing.

 

There are different processes for different life forms.  To remain weak is not an asset.  To remain flexible is.  To be healthy and strong is an asset.  To constantly exert one's strength will lead to disaster.  Better to remain inactive when there is nothing that needs be done.  This way one will have reserve energy when something does need be done.

 

 

I have still yet not completed a reading of Legge's translation of Chuang Tzu.  It just doesn't feel real to me.

 

I don't even feel comfortable with Liu Quixuan's translation above because of the use of the word "weakness".

 

In my opinion it is the harmony between Yin and Yang that is important.  Too much of either is not good.  But consider, I do not view Yin as weakness but rather of restive.  Great difference between the two.

 

 

And then, the key concept in that original passage I posted was that we should not confuse the physical with the spiritual.  Physical being Yang and Spiritual being Yin.

I figure anyone is going to have affinity for particular translations , the ones that LEAST REQUIRE one to bend away from ideas they already hold.  

 

Since when is yin and yang a polemic opposing physical and spiritual? I've never heard anyone conclude that before.

[Marblehead]

I figure anyone is going to have affinity for particular translations , the ones that LEAST REQUIRE one to bend away from ideas they already hold.

Well, of course.  That's the way our brain works.

 

Since when is yin and yang a polemic opposing physical and spiritual? I've never heard anyone conclude that before.

I made that up especially for you.  But I liked it and that's why I shared.

 

But, it is based in the concept that Yin = restive = spiritual and Yang = active = physical.

[Stosh]

That yin yang thing , I wish it was never developed. Restive means restless-by the way I think you mean restful. 

[Stosh]

Well, of course.  That's the way our brain works.

True, which leads to Stoshes basic  principle number 156 , which states " A person is least likely to like the advice they most need to heed.

[Marblehead]

True, which leads to Stoshes basic  principle number 156 , which states " A person is least likely to like the advice they most need to heed."

I can't argue with that!!!

 

There is a learning theory about that.  It's been too long and I can't remember well but basically our brain goes into chaos mode when we are presented with information that contradicts what we hold as a truth.

 

That's why I get so nasty whenever Quantum Mechanics is mentioned.

[Stosh]

Ahh,,  I wont choose to mention it then , but, frankly I don't think any of the mathematical brains really comprehend the subject either ,since there really isn't anything to compare to which we/I  do/can  see and feel etc. But I dont have to !

I'll  Let them do their finagle-ing work out all the issues , and then get back to me with a tangible product. 

 

Thats in keeping with the Tao thing , Ill keep my babylike innocence about it,  and they can do all the work

 

It reminds me of ' the happiness of fishes' 

Edited February 16, 2016 by Stosh

[Marblehead]

Yeah, the happiness of fishes.  Deep subject.

[Stosh]

I can't argue with that!!!

 

There is a learning theory about that.  It's been too long and I can't remember well but basically our brain goes into chaos mode when we are presented with information that contradicts what we hold as a truth.

 

That's why I get so nasty whenever Quantum Mechanics is mentioned.

testing 

[Marblehead]

Your test seems to have gone well.

[Stosh]

Clearing the cache worked , seems OK now.

[Stosh]

The response that I was thinking would come to mind was .. What do you know of the happiness of fishes?.. (similar to knowing quantum stuff) ,the response to which one might say that we or they , infer what they we cant really know first hand,

and so-  was a segue rather than an abrupt and mysterious change of subject.  

I suppose this is where the idea shows up, that if one did know everything external based on inference , then all that could be known would be already at hand in ones own experience. So a sage could know everything , without leaving his house.. so to speak... all of which IS rather deep philosophically, so I agree.