The Father and Son of Taoist Philosophy

[Geof Nanto]

Once the uncarved wood is carved,

It forms utensils.

 

This is why the Holy Man does not carve,

Nor does he wish to be carved.

 

Since the Holy Man follows the way of Tao

He is fit to be lord over the functionaries.

 

 

 

Have you seen the very different interpretation of the lines "Since the Holy Man follows the way of Tao, He is fit to be lord over the functionaries" from the Mawangdui version? I find it much more authentically Daoist.

 

Among all the Daodejing occurrences of pu (uncarved block), chapter 28 is the only case in which the transmitted and Mawangdui  excavated versions are significantly different – the transmitted text has an extra grammatical particle zhi 之 "a possessive marker; a 3rd person pronoun" after yong 用 "use; employ". Robert G. Henricks  explains this small grammatical change between the standard text saying the sage yong zhi "uses it" and the excavated silk text saying yong "is used". The transmitted version 樸散則為器聖人用之則為官長 "When the uncarved wood is broken up, it is turned into concrete things. But when the sage uses it, he becomes the leading official." should be read 樸散則為器聖人用則為官長 "When uncarved wood is cut up, it's turned into vessels. When the Sage is used, he becomes the Head of Officials." D. C. Lau says the traditional passage "seems to say that when the uncarved block shatters it becomes vessels. A vessel is a specialist who is only fitted to be an official. Hence the sage when he makes use of these vessels becomes the lord over the officials.", but in Mawangdui passage, "The meaning is very different. The uncarved block is a symbol for the sage. Just as the uncarved block becomes vessels when it shatters so does the sage become the chief of the officials when he allows himself to be employed, and just as the uncarved block is ruined when it becomes useful, so does a sage become ruined when he becomes useful." The word qi 器 "vessel; utensil" is translated here as "tools", "concrete things", "vessels", "specialists", and "officials".

 

(edited version of text from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pu_%28Daoism%29)

[Marblehead]

Hi Darkstar,

 

Thanks for the note.

 

When I did this work the only Mawangdui translation I had was Henricks'.  But I used whatever translation I felt most comfortable with.

 

For me, these lines speak very nicely to the concept of anarchy:

 

This is why the Holy Man does not carve,
Nor does he wish to be carved.

 

And I agree with:

 

"... The uncarved block is a symbol for the sage. ..."

 

And this speaks well to the anarchist as well.

 

The concepts of "useful/useless" will be spoken to numerous times a little later.

[Marblehead]

Chuang Tzu looked around and saw that those who were speaking had left so he continued:

 

 

The King Of Life

The king of life (the pure man) goes his way free, inactive, unknown.  He would blush to be in business.  He keeps his roots down in the origin, down in the spring (water).  His knowledge is enfolded in Spirit and he grows great.  Greatness opens a great heart; a world’s refuge.  Without forethought he comes out in majesty.  Without plan he goes his way and all things follow him.  This is the kingly man; he who rides above life.

This one sees in the dark, hears where there is no sound.  In the deep dark he alone sees light.  In soundlessness he alone perceives music.  He can go down into the lowest of low places and find meaning.  He can stand in the highest of high places and find meaning.  He is in contact with all beings.  That which moves is what he stands on.  Great is small for him, long is short for him, and all his distances are near.
 

[Marblehead]

Silence (finally!).

 

After a few minutes for thought Lao Tzu said:

 

 

The Marks Of Great Character

The marks of great Character
Follow alone from the Tao.


(Character, or Virtue, Te, is the power of Tao; Tao embodied.)
 

[Marblehead]

"Ah!", thought Chuang Tzu, "The Character of man."

 

Chaung Tzu said:

 

 

Means And Ends

The gatekeeper in the capital city became such an expert mourner after his father’s death, and so emaciated himself with fasts and austerities, that he was promoted to high rank in order that he might serve as a model of ritual observance.

As a result of this, his imitators so deprived themselves that half of them died.  The others were not promoted.
 

[Stosh]

[Marblehead]

And Chuang Tzu continued:

 

 

On Blindness Of Understanding

A disciple said to the Sage, “I heard a tale of an old man which is extravagant and improbable, in which he lets imagination completely run away with him.”

“Would you tell me the tale?” the Sage asked.

“A man told me that in the great mountains there lived a divine man whose skin is as white as ice and snow and whose loveliness is like that of a maiden, that he eats not the five grains but lives only on air and dew, that he rides above the clouds and wanders beyond the four seas, and that his soul is such that by concentrating its power he can stay the process of decay.  To me these claims are entirely beyond credulity.”

“I am not surprised,” the Sage said.  “The blind cannot appreciate beauty of line and depth, the deaf cannot appreciate the beauty of drums and bells.  But there is not only blindness and deafness of the body but of the understanding as well.  This applies to you.  The virtue of the divine man you heard about is such that he aims at the fusion of all beings into One.  Why should he concern himself with the affairs of the world, troubled though it is?  Nothing external can harm this being.  He will not drown in a flood that rises to Heaven, he will not be burned in a drought that melts metal and stone and consumes whole mountains.  Why should he concern himself with external things?”
 

[Marblehead]

And Chuang Tzu furthermore said:

 

 

The Parable Of The Animals, The Wind And The Mind

The k’uei (a one-legged hopping animal) envies the centipede, the centipede envies the snake, the snake envies the wind, the wind envies the eye, and the eye envies the mind.

“I hop about with one leg”, said the k’uei to the centipede.  “There is no one who moves about more simply than I do.  Now you have so many legs.  How do you manage?”

“How do I manage?” replied the centipede.  “Haven’t you seen a man spitting?  The spittle comes in big drops like beads and small driplets like mist, and they all fall together without number.  When I move my natural mechanism, I really don’t know how I manage my legs.”

“I move about with so many legs,” said the centipede to the snake.  “How is it that I do not go so fast as you do without legs at all?”

“Each one,” replied the snake, “moves in his own way by his own natural mechanism.  What need do I have for legs?”

“I move about with my spine,” said the snake to the wind. “Now, at least I have something like a leg.  But you come booming up from the North Sea and booming down to the South Sea, and you seem to have no body.  How is that?”

“Indeed,” replied the wind. “I go booming up from the North Sea and booming down to the South Sea.  Yet whoever sticks his finger into me overcomes me, and whoever kicks me also overcomes me.  However, only I can tear up big trees and blow down big houses.  Therefore, from a great number of small successes I achieve the great victory.”

The true conqueror is he who is not conquered by the multitude of the small.  Achieving the great victory belongs to the Sage alone.  The mind is this conqueror, but only the mind of the wise man.


(The parable is left incomplete but, continuing the line of thinking, it is evident that the wind, which is air, envies the eye, and finally the mind, which can travel across the centuries of time and leap across the continents of space in the flash of a second and is formless itself, travels even faster than light illustrating the truth that the formless is the most efficient of all.)
 

[Marblehead]

"Wow!", thought Lao Tzu.  After a short pause he responded with:

 

 

Too Much Learning; Too Many Words

Much learning means frequent exhaustion;
That is not so good as holding on to the mean.

By many words is wit exhausted.

Rather, therefore, hold to the core.


(Holding to the core, or center, is an important concept in Taoist philosophy.)
 

[Marblehead]

And Chuang Tzu quickly replied:

 

 

The Purpose Of Words

The purpose of a fish trap is to catch fish, and when the fish are caught, the trap is forgotten.  The purpose of a rabbit snare is to catch rabbits.  When the rabbits are caught, the snare is forgotten.  The purpose of words is to convey ideas.  When the ideas are grasped, the words are forgotten.  Where can I find a man who has forgotten words?  He is the one I would like to talk with.
 

[Stosh]

Rtyh, guytrbh, ?

Edited March 22, 2015 by Stosh

[soaring crane]

Much learning means frequent exhaustion;

That is not so good as holding on to the mean.

 

By many words is wit exhausted.

 

Rather, therefore, hold to the core.

 

 

(Holding to the core, or center, is an important concept in Taoist philosophy.)

 

 

 

I think it sounds deeper in Yoda:

 

Frequent exhaustion much learning means

 

So good as on to the mean holding, that is not

 

Exhausted is wit by many words

 

To the core hold, rather, therefore

[shanlung]

And Chuang Tzu quickly replied:

 

 

The Purpose Of Words

 

The purpose of a fish trap is to catch fish, and when the fish are caught, the trap is forgotten.  The purpose of a rabbit snare is to catch rabbits.  When the rabbits are caught, the snare is forgotten.  The purpose of words is to convey ideas.  When the ideas are grasped, the words are forgotten.  Where can I find a man who has forgotten words?  He is the one I would like to talk with.

 

 

I love to talk except I cannot remember the words.

 

 

Idiot of the unremembered Tao

[Geof Nanto]

And Chuang Tzu quickly replied:

 

 

The Purpose Of Words

 

The purpose of a fish trap is to catch fish, and when the fish are caught, the trap is forgotten.  The purpose of a rabbit snare is to catch rabbits.  When the rabbits are caught, the snare is forgotten.  The purpose of words is to convey ideas.  When the ideas are grasped, the words are forgotten.  Where can I find a man who has forgotten words?  He is the one I would like to talk with.

 

 

Marblehead, I'm interested in what you (or anyone else) makes of Moeller's explanation of Zhuangzi's fish trap analogy. (I've posted it earlier on another thread but I'll post it again in case you didn't see it.) Moeller paraphrases the translation as follows....

 

A fish trap is a means to get hold of fish

    You can only forget about the fish trap once you've had your fish

A rabbit snare is a means to get hold of rabbits

   You can only forget about the rabbit snare once you've had your rabbit

Words are a means to get hold of ideas

   You can only forget about words once you've had your ideas

How could I talk to someone who has forgotten words?

 

(When it comes to two sages having no ideas, they will both have nothing to talk about - commentary by Guo Xiang, circa 300 AD.)

 

 

According to Moeller "the fishtrap allegory is by no means about how to catch and keep some deep thoughts or ideas [as is the mainstream interpretation]. It is, on the contrary, about getting rid of concepts in order to arrive at perfect Daoist silence. It is about how to become permanently satisfied and to completely eliminate the hunger for the next dish of meaning and language."

 

Leonard Cohen sings "Dance me to the end of love"; Zhuangzi dances me to the end of concepts.

Edited March 22, 2015 by Darkstar

[Marblehead]

Darkstar.  Yes, we can talk about that.  Please bump the thread it active and I will speak to it.  (I did like your Leonard comment.)

[Geof Nanto]

Please bump the thread it active and I will speak to it.  

 

I don't know what you're asking me to do (if anything) - I'm not savvy to these terms.

[Marblehead]

I don't know what you're asking me to do (if anything) - I'm not savvy to these terms.

Find that thread where you spoke of Moeller's translation and make a post to it.  That will make it an active thread and I will be able to see it immediately.

[Geof Nanto]

Find that thread where you spoke of Moeller's translation and make a post to it.  That will make it an active thread and I will be able to see it immediately.

 

I originally posted it as a reply to someone else’s comment  in “Do you believe qi is an illusion?” (post # 33), but obviously it’s less relevant to follow up there than here.  And it’s probably not possible to critique Moeller’s interpretation of the fishnet allegory without reading his full 8 page explanation.  However, if you have any thoughts on it I'm certainly interested to hear them. Basically he’s critical of the mainstream interpretation because he sees it as a Western interpretation constructed from our conceptual foundations in classical Greek and Old-European philosophies.

 

Really what I was looking for is someone who’s familiar with Moeller’s work.  I particularly like his explanations as they both resonate with - and greatly expand - my own insights.  Consequently I have adopted many of his views as my own.  Hence, I’m interested in how his interpretation stands amongst those with specialist interest. I haven't found any relevant critique on the web and was hoping the members of this community may have some insights.  I like to check the authenticity of my sources and am happy to find when I'm wrong  – then I know I've learnt something new.

[gatito]

I'm not familiar with Moeller but from reading post #214 he appears to be refering to philosophical sublation (aufhebung).

In brief, this is a process of using increasingly refined and subtle concepts to remove attatchments to grosser and less subtle concepts. The method is well known within advaita vedanta teachin and is usually conceptualised as "using thorns to remove other thorns".

The final thorn can then be thrown away.

[Marblehead]

I really don't see any significant difference between Moeller's translation and the translation I posted above (I think it is Watson's).

 

The concept is presented well by both.  Bottom line, the words aren't all that important as long as communications has been had.

 

I do not have Moeller's translation nor have I ever read it so I really can't speak to how he presents Chuang Tzu's words and concepts compared to other translations.

 

I think that Gatito has a valid point in the above post.

[Geof Nanto]

I really don't see any significant difference between Moeller's translation and the translation I posted above (I think it is Watson's).

 

There's a big difference in the line "When the ideas are grasped, the words are forgotten." Moeller considers the notion that there are 'real' ideas behind the words a Western concept of reality - not a Daoist one. For him the correct Daoist reading is about forgetting both words and ideas. (I like "using thorns to remove other thorns". The final thorn can then be thrown away. Thanks gatito - I hadn't heard that before.)

 

This is the conventional interpretation that Moeller denies...."The concept that words are expressions of mental contents, which are representations of facts, can be traced back to at least Aristotle's De Interpretations. In order to understand facts, one must accordingly go beyond words to grasp the ideas that stand for the facts. Once one leaves the words behind and arrives at the thoughts, one will comprehend the truth. In order to arrive at the truth one has to arrive at ideas."

[Marblehead]

Seems to me, based on what you just said, Moeller is adding stuff that isn't there.  Facts have nothing to do with our mental activity.  All thought is subjective.  They may include facts but this is not necessary.

 

And if one leaves words behind there is nothing left with which to express ourself.  It is my opinion that Chuang Tzu was referring to the tradition of memorizing the writings of the masters of old and then just regurgitating them whenever in a discussion.  He was asking if, after reading all the "great words" of the masters one had grasped the meaning of what was said - did you grasp the concept presented with those words?  If so then you should be able to express them with your own words.  This is the difference between knowledge and wisdom.

 

Moeller, by including "facts" in the equation becomes more Classical Greek in his thought than other translators ever did.

 

Again, words, concepts, understandings; or not.

 

You can use words to explain to me the Easter Bunny.  The words allowed me to symbolize the concept in my mind and I can imagine a rabbit carrying a basket of brightly colored chicken eggs in a basket.  Lovely story.  No facts.

 

And truth has nothing to do with anything.

[Geof Nanto]

And if one leaves words behind there is nothing left with which to express ourself.  It is my opinion that Chuang Tzu was referring to the tradition of memorizing the writings of the masters of old and then just regurgitating them whenever in a discussion.  He was asking if, after reading all the "great words" of the masters one had grasped the meaning of what was said - did you grasp the concept presented with those words?  If so then you should be able to express them with your own words.  This is the difference between knowledge and wisdom.

 

To my understanding this is not the implication of the fishtrap analogy. "Did you grasp the concept presented in those words? If so then you should be able to express them with your own words." That's the sort of interpretation Moeller is refuting. (Though what you say about the difference between knowledge and wisdom is certainly valid in other contexts.)

 

The old masters have used words to trap aspects of the Dao as concepts we can grasp with our human discriminating mind. Once we've been nourished by the wisdom of those words that tell us that the mind of Dao exists beyond words, then we know to develop our praxis of direct connection with the Dao, and forget the realm of words and concepts.

 

In other language, the words and the concepts they convey are like the finger pointing towards the moon.   

Edited March 23, 2015 by Darkstar

[Marblehead]

Hehehe.  I guess I was refuting Moeller.

 

Thing is, We can experience Dao.  But if we wish to communicate our experience to others the first thing we must do is establish the concepts and then use the words that best relate these concepts.

 

And again I suggest that these are our experiences, not something we learned from the old masters and are now repeating what we read of their experiences.

[Marblehead]

After the background chatter died down Lao Tzu submitted:

 

 

Arrogance And Pride Bring Disaster

When gold and jade fill your rooms,
You will never be able to protect them.

Arrogance and pride
On their own bring disaster.

To be proud with wealth and rank
Is to sow the seeds of one’s own downfall.